Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BRITISH WATERWAYS BILL [Lords] (By Order)

CROSSRAIL BILL (By Order)

EAST COAST MAIN LINE (SAFETY) BILL (By Order)

GREATER MANCHESTER (LIGHT RAPID

TRANSIT SYSTEM) BILL [Lords] (By Order)

WOODGRANGE PARK CEMETERY BILL [Lords] (By Order)

RIVER HUMBER (UPPER BURCOM COOLING WORKS) BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Orders for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time on Thursday 15 April.

BRITISH RAILWAYS (No. 4) BILL (By Order)

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [8 February], That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Debate to be resumed on Thursday 15 April.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

VAT (Fuel)

Ms Quin: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received about the levying of VAT on domestic heating announced in the Budget.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Norman Lamont): I have received a number of representations.

Ms Quin: Does the Chancellor agree that his time before the Budget would have been better spent had he not remained in purdah but talked to a number of the people who will be hardest hit by these proposals? Does he further agree that, as well as the people on benefit who are worried about how they are going to pay those higher bills, people just above benefit level are frightened that this measure will push them further into the poverty trap? Will he think again about this measure before it is too late?

Mr. Lamont: On the first point, the hon. Lady suggested that I should have been out listening rather than reflecting in quiet, but, by doing so I was able to read the manifesto of the Leader of the Opposition in which he said:
We should consider increased use of the fiscal system to promote environmental protection.

I also had the opportunity to read Labour's policy document "Looking to the Future", which said:
We will be looking of ways of increasing taxes on environmentally damaging products.
The fact is that when we look at a problem we decide to do something about it, rather than write a lot of words which we then retreat from. That is the difference between being in government and being in opposition and mouthing platitudes.

Sir Terence Higgins: Will the Chancellor give an assurance that in calculating the extra amount to compensate pensioners and those on low incomes for the effect of the tax—which will be paid in advance of the tax coming into operation—he will not take account of any change in the underlying level of fuel prices which may have occurred in the interim? If that is so, will he announce the amount now rather than wait until autumn?

Mr. Lamont: I note my right hon. Friend's point. He knows that we have announced that we will bring forward the extra help so that it will be available from April 1994, at the precise moment that the bills will arrive. We have done that because we wish to help. We have made it very clear that while we regard this measure as necessary on both fiscal and environmental grounds, it is not our intention that poorer people should suffer. I have made that abundantly clear.

Mr. William Ross: Since the Chancellor has now broken through the zero-rated barrier, does he realise that no one will believe him when he says that he will maintain the zero rate principle on many other items? Does not he see the danger that this very unpopular tax will, for the Tories, eventually prove to be the equivalent of the poll tax in the previous Parliament?

Mr. Lamont: What the British public expect from the Government is that we should pursue sound finance. That is the overwhelming and first commitment of the Government.

Mr. Wilkinson: When Lord Barber introduced VAT on April fool's day 20 years ago, he boasted that the British rates of VAT were the simplest to implement within Europe. Would it be reasonable to say that from 1995–96 and beyond that to 1996–97, if the Government get their budget deficit back under control, there could still be a hope of getting VAT on domestic fuel down again?

Mr. Lamont: We have only just put our proposals forward and intend to legislate for them. It would be quite wrong for me to speculate about future years. I make this observation to my hon. Friend: Britain's average rate of VAT, measured across all products, is one of the lowest in the Community.

Mr. Gordon Brown: Should not the Chancellor have been reading his own election commitments, when he said that there were no circumstances in which value added tax on fuel, gas or electricity would be raised? Is not that the reason why the country will never trust the Chancellor again? Will he confirm that, as a result of the changes in VAT, the typical British family will soon be paying £15 a week in VAT, compared with £1·86 when the Labour party left office, and that the biggest element in that is the VAT on gas and electricity, which will cost £2 a week. Is not it a disgrace that the Government, who believe that unemployment is a "price well worth paying" for their


economic failure, also appear to believe now that poverty among pensioners is a price well worth paying for their economic failure? Will he now answer—[Interruption.] Conservative Members do not like it because we are telling the truth about what is happening. Will the Chancellor answer one simple question? Is he now proposing that, on top of VAT on the use of fuel, he will also impose VAT on standing charges for gas and electricity—yes or no?

Mr. Lamont: I assure the hon. Gentleman that, far from not liking what he says, we always love everything that he says in the House.
I know that the hon. Gentleman yesterday had a briefing and a lunch with British Gas, as a result of which he was informed that VAT applied to standing charges. If it did not apply to standing charges, that would be an obvious case of avoidance. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer!"] I have answered the hon. Gentleman's question and will not take any lectures on the subject from the Labour party which, when it was in office, increased electricity prices by 168 per cent.—an average of almost 20·7 per cent. a year. As I observed in my wind-up speech in the Budget debate, we know who the Minister of State at the Department of Energy was at that time—the Leader of the Opposition. We also know why the Government of the day did it—because they were so in hock to the International Monetary Fund that they had to shove up electricity prices. We will not take any lectures from the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown).

Corporation Tax

Mr. Stephen: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the differential between the level of corporation tax in the United Kingdom and equivalent taxes in other EC countries.

Mr. Robathan: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the difference between the level of corporation tax in the United Kingdom and equivalent taxes in other EC countries.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): The proposed main rate of UK corporation tax for the financial year 1993 is 33 per cent. The main rates on distributed profits in other European Community states vary sbetween 33⅓ and 40 per cent.

Mr. Stephen: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is much better for British industry and commerce to have a simple system of company taxation at the lowest possible rate, rather than the complex system of capital allowances much favoured by the Opposition parties, as they distort investment decisions and are open to abuse?

Mr. Dorrell: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. The consequence of the corporation tax changes introduced in the 1980s is that we have cut the marginal rate of corporation tax on profits from 52 per cent. when we came to power to 33 per cent. now—the lowest rate in the European Community. That is one of the factors which make this country an attractive place for business to invest. That must have been one of the factors that Mr. Delors took into account when he correctly described this country as a paradise for Japanese investment.

Mr. Robathan: My hon. Friend mentioned inward investment. How much encouragement does he believe

that the low rate of taxation has given foreign companies in the past? Does he believe that the low rate of corporate taxation will continue to encourage inward investment into this country?

Mr. Dorrell: I believe that a low rate of corporation tax is an important part of the Government's total commitment to attracting a high rate of inward investment—a policy which has been startlingly successful. Some 40 per cent. of Japanese investment in Europe is based in the United Kingdom and one third of all inward investment into the European Community in 1991 came to the United Kingdom. That is because we have set out to make this country an attractive place in which business can invest in order to employ people and create wealth.

Mr. Sheldon: Is not it a misleading over-simplification to talk about the corporation tax rate of other countries without going into the complicated ways in which they give allowances for capital investment, particularly on plant and machinery? In this respect, while I understand that the Treasury will not increase the level of capital allowances in the way that I, for one, would wish to see, will the hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that the increase from 25 to 40 per cent., due to expire on 31 October this year, will be extended?

Mr. Dorrell: No, but I can give the right hon. Gentleman the undertaking that we will carry out the policy that we announced in the autumn statement: to have time-limited investment allowances of the sort that were written into the Labour party's manifesto at the last election. It is rather odd that the right hon. Gentleman should seek to move away from it. What is not an over-simplification is that plant and machinery investment in Britain today is running over 50 per cent. higher in real terms than it was when the Labour party left office in 1979. There is an investment boom in this country by firms that recognise that Britain is an attractive place in which to do business.

Mr. Nicholas Brown: Will the Financial Secretary confirm that to state the rate is not to state the tax burden and that, in the United Kingdom, company taxes account for 4 per cent. of GDP while the European Community average is 3·1 per cent. of GDP? Will he further confirm that in the OECD only Australia, Japan, Luxembourg and Norway have higher corporate tax takes than we do?

Mr. Dorrell: To state the rate is to state the incentive, which is the important thing when considering whether an investment is to go ahead. The hon. Gentleman quotes a series of selective figures, which discount the fact that the figures for other countries for business investment should take account of the much higher rates of tax that they impose, for example, through their national insurance systems. Furthermore, the hon. Gentleman discounts the fact that British business has been successful at generating profits—more successful than it was when the Labour party was in power.

Sir Anthony Durant: Is my hon. Friend aware that, only this morning, I took two Japanese business men to the Board of Trade because they have looked at the whole of Europe and decided that this is the best place to come, with quite large sums of money? They feel that the atmosphere, taxation and everything is right for setting up business.

Mr. Dorrell: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his actions and on the fact that he is drawing the attention of his Japanese business friends to the attractive nature of the regime for investment here. It is not only Japanese or overseas investors who find this an attractive place in which to do business. It would occasionally be nice to hear congratulations from Labour Members on the fact that 10 of the top 20 European companies are British companies which are successfully doing business in this country and proving themselves in the marketplace to be more successful than their competitors.

Mr. Skinner: The Japanese are probably doing exceptionally well because they know the difference between threes and fives. The Minister referred to 33 per cent. corporation tax. Did he get that figure from the Chancellor of the Exchequer? If he did, how do we know that it is correct? It could be 55 per cent. I throw out a challenge to the Chancellor. I will play him at fives and threes at dominos and I will win every time and give the money to the pensioners to pay the extra VAT.

Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Gentleman might like to reflect on the fact that the £35 billion worth of public expenditure commitments that the Labour party made in its manifesto at the general election might have been £53 billion.

Income Tax

Mr. David Shaw: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the number of taxpayers in 1993–94 who will be paying income tax solely at a rate of 20 per cent. and the number of taxpayers whose incomes are at a level where more than half the income tax they pay is calculated at the rate of 20 per cent.

Mr. Lamont: The figures are 4·9 million and more than 8 million respectively.

Mr. Shaw: Does my right hon. Friend accept that many of my constituents are among those millions who are benefiting from the 20 per cent. band of income tax? Is not that 20 per cent. rate of income tax, as it is being implemented, a firm example of the way in which we meet our manifesto commitments? Can he explain why the Labour party refuses to support the 20 per cent. band?

Mr. Lamont: My hon. Friend makes a good point. I should have thought that it was eminently desirable that our starting rate of tax should come down to a level comparable with that of many other countries. The Labour party used to support that policy, but when the Conservative party implements it, it suddenly becomes wrong and the Labour party no longer supports it.

Mr. Rooker: Will the Chancellor confirm that, as a result of freezing personal allowances, 300,000 more people will pay tax at 20 per cent. rather than at zero? Before the right hon. Gentleman brings the order to the House to implement that outrageous policy, will he invite his hon. Friends to sound out the 500 people in each of their constituencies who will have a tax increase from zero to 20p in the pound in order to discuss with them the fairness of such a policy before his hon. Friends vote on it?

Mr. Lamont: What the hon. Gentleman ignores is the fact that, as a result of the Government's policies, almost 1·5 million more people are non-taxpayers than would be the case had we carried on with the tax regime that we

inherited from the Labour Government when we came to power. Furthermore, when one takes into account the Opposition's promises and their public expenditure consequences, they cannot give us any lectures about taxation. We shall listen to the Opposition on income tax only when they join us in promising to work to reduce the basic rate of income tax to 20p in the pound.

Mr. John Townend: Does my right hon. Friend agree that low marginal rates of direct income taxation are not only an incentive to hard work and enterprise, but are a significant factor when overseas companies are deciding where to put their manufacturing plant and, even more importantly, their European head offices? They will not invest in countries where their highly qualified executives are excessively taxed. Is not that why the previous Labour Government, with a marginal rate of 83 per cent., had a much worse record than this Government in attracting inward investment?

Mr. Lamont: My hon. Friend is right. Britain has one of the most attractive and competitive direct tax systems in the world and we have made it clear that we intend to maintain it that way. The Opposition favour high rates of tax and, in the past, such high, confiscatory rates of tax have been counter-productive because they raise less revenue.

National Insurance

Mr. Cohen: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he has had with employees' and employers' organisations about his plan to increase national insurance contributions.

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Michael Portillo): National insurance contributions were mentioned in a number of representations received before the Budget.

Mr. Cohen: Did not those organisations tell the Chancellor and the Minister that an increase in national insurance contributions would be a tax on employment, with the result that about 18 million employees and 2 million self-employed people will be worse off and 500,000 people who have earned too little to pay income tax will have to pay the increase in national insurance contributions? Leaving aside the Prime Minister's statement last January that he had no plans to increase national insurance contributions, which now looks like an election con, does not the Government's insurance policy seem to be to up the premiums while cutting the benefit payouts?

Mr. Portillo: The hon. Gentleman ignores the fact that we are paying about £37 billion a year in contributory benefits. Is that to be paid mostly by people in work or by taxpayers in general? If the hon. Gentleman's solution is that it should be paid by taxpayers in general, he is asking pensioners, people who have retired and people who are not in work to contribute to the ongoing benefits of other people. I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman wishes to support such a policy. We have a national insurance fund and it is a sound principle that, taking one year with another, as much as possible of it should be balanced.

Mr. Luff: Does my right hon. Friend agree that as long as we have a national insurance fund it must be adequately financed and that it is right to increase contributions when demand rises and reduce them when it falls?

Mr. Portillo: The Government have shown some flexibility on that point in that, during the recession, when less money has come into the fund, we have been willing to see a Treasury supplement paid into it. But my hon. Friend must be right. We are paying out a huge amount in benefits. The average working person is now paying £10 each working day for social security benefits. It is right that people should be aware of that and, in principle, over a period of time, our national insurance fund should be balanced.

Mr. Stevenson: Will the Minister confirm that the proposed increases in national insurance contributions are not only a complete abdication of the promises given by the Conservative party at the election, but another increase in the overall level of taxation that the country is suffering? Will he further confirm that the overall level of taxation is now higher than it was when the Government took office in 1979?

Mr. Portillo: If the hon. Gentleman holds views so strongly, why did he sign up to a manifesto that intended to increase national insurance contributions by 9 per cent., on top of income tax increases of 10 per cent? He wanted to increase the burden on the country's wealth-creating sector by 19 per cent., yet he has the cheek to criticise the Government.

Deregulation

Mr. Roger Evans: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a further statement about the measures announced in the Budget involving deregulation.

Mr. Lamont: The Budget proposals will make an important contribution to the Government's deregulation initiative. The changes announced have been warmly welcomed in the business community—particularly the proposals on the statutory audit. In the longer term, the burden on the self-employed will be substantially eased by my proposals for simplified self-assessment.

Mr. Evans: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his answer. Does he understand the importance to small business men in particular of the introduction of self-assessment as a system of deregulation and in relieving the burden?

Mr. Lamont: The self-assessment proposals were warmly welcomed by the Federation of Small Businesses and the Forum of Private Business. There are strong arguments for self-assessment. It is a simpler, better system for the ordinary citizen and it is a good thing that the people of this country should know the tax consequences of Government spending.

Mr. Cryer: Will not the self-employed who disappeared owing £114 million in tax in 1991–92 be delighted with self-assessment, because it is wide open to corruption? The Chancellor claims to reduce the burdens of business, but is not every extension of value added tax an imposition on small businesses, which have to act as tax-gatherers without receiving any money for doing so? Last year, the Government produced more statutory instruments—

which are in the main burdensome regulations, affecting the community at large, including small businesses—than ever before in the history of Parliament. Does not that demonstrate that the Government are all words and no action?

Mr. Lamont: I am slightly surprised about the hon. Gentleman's remarks about VAT, bearing in mind his first comments. The more that taxation is shifted towards indirect tax, the easier it is to deal with the black economy and to collect tax in that direction. The hon. Gentleman's comments are difficult to understand. I am sure that everybody, including small business organisations, recognises the hon. Gentleman's first point, when he seemed to characterise small business men as a lot of tax cheats. That is not our view.

Environment

Mr. Clifton-Brown: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what reaction he has received from environmental organisations about the measures announced in the Budget statement.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Anthony Nelson): The Budget measures designed to encourage more efficient use of energy have been welcomed by a number of environmental organisations.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: Is my hon. Friend aware that Friends of the Earth, no less, commenting on my right hon. Friend's fiscal measures to help the environment, said that the Budget was bad for energy wasters, gas guzzlers and perk company cars? Is not it hypocritical of the Opposition to portray themselves as green, but they squeal like mad when it hurts them in the pocket?

Mr. Nelson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Friends of the Earth welcomed the Budget measures and if the Opposition are so incensed about the tax, one is bound to ask why they do not promise to reverse it.

Mr. Alex Carlile: In reacting to the Budget, have environmental organisations reminded the Treasury that substantial investment is being made in renewable energy sources, such as wind farms? If so, will the Minister take steps to ensure favourable fiscal treatment of electricity suppliers that are able to draw part of their supply from renewable energy sources?

Mr. Nelson: The hon. and learned Gentleman speaks on behalf of wind farms and does so with vigour and passion. I hear what he says and I am sure that there is something in it. The main objective must be to comply with the Rio targets and conventions and the hon. and learned Gentleman's proposals would go hardly any way towards reaching that ambitious target.

Mr. Andrew Smith: Before the Minister drowns in self-congratulation, will he acknowledge that Greenpeace, no less, said of the Budget that the overall proposal was a setback for the environment? If the Minister is really interested in helping the environment, will he put into practice Labour's national energy efficiency programme, which would save four times the CO2that the Government claim through the imposition of VAT? Will he bring forward environmental improvement measures that can


generate jobs as well as save energy? Should not the Minister be insulating pensioners' homes rather than inflating their fuel bills?

Mr. Nelson: As I said earlier, Friends of the Earth welcome our proposals. It is impossible always to please every environmental group. If the hon. Gentleman objects to the cost of imposing the taxation, it strikes me as strange that he should now propose that we go even further.
In the forthcoming year, the Government will spend some £40 million on the home energy efficiency scheme. That will greatly benefit nearly a quarter of a million households.

Exports

Mr. Bates: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a further statement about measures to assist exports announced in the Budget.

Mr. Lamont: The reduction in export credit premiums and the £1·3 billion extension of cover that I announced in the Budget will enhance the ability of British exporters to compete in some of the most important, fastest growing markets in the world.

Mr. Bates: I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer. Is he aware that the measures that he has announced to help exports will be particularly welcome in the north-east, which already exports a larger proportion of its manufacturing production than almost any other region? Does he recognise that export success has as much to do with individual endeavour and enterprise as with Government support and assistance? Will he join me in welcoming the establishment of a self-help programme—the manufacturing challenge for north-east industry—which has been launched with the twin aims of doubling the region's manufacturing base and tripling exports in the next 10 years?

Mr. Lamont: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend, and I am grateful to him for mentioning the north-east manufacturing challenge. He can be assured that we will do all that we can to encourage agencies and business men in the north-east to support that initiative. Given their energy and commitment, I am sure that the outstanding export performance of the north-east will be enhanced further.
The measures that I announced in the Budget have been strongly welcomed—particularly by the British chambers of commerce—as a major boost for exports. The availability of lower premiums and more cover will enable us to compete in some of the markets that are particularly important to us.

Value Added Tax

Mr. Foulkes: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of an average household's income is forecast to be spent on VAT (a) in 1993–94 and (b) in 1994–95.

Mr. Nelson: Around 5½ per cent. of income in 1993–94 for a family on average earnings.

Mr. Foulkes: Does the Minister accept that while the top 10 per cent. of earners spend less than 3·5 per cent. of their income on fuel, the bottom 10 per cent. spend more than 13 per cent of their much smaller income on fuel?

Does he accept that a couple on income support, with two children, will have to pay an extra £2 a week for fuel as a result of the Chancellor's Budget proposals? Will he now end people's agony, suspense and misery by giving an assurance that they will be compensated in full?

Mr. Nelson: The Budget as a whole ensures that the better off will pay more. It is undoubtedly true that, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has said, substantial help will be made available to assist people with the VAT costs that they will have to pay next year. As for the burden of tax generally, real take-home pay has risen considerably since the Government came to office. All in all, we should be judged according to our deeds rather than our words. We have protected those most in need, and everyone else is better off.

Mr. Nigel Evans: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Government's policy has been to shift the burden of taxation away from incomes and on to expenditure? Over the past 14 years, the top rate of income tax has fallen from 83p to 40p, and the bottom rate has fallen from 33p—the rate under the last Labour Government—to 20p.

Mr. Nelson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right—there has been a progressive move away from direct taxation and towards indirect taxation. This party, and this Government, believe that people should be left with as much as possible of the product of their own earnings and savings to spend as they think best.

Ms Harman: Will the Minister clarify the position? The Chancellor was deliberately confusing on this point? Is it now admitted that VAT will be imposed on standing charges for gas and electricity as well as on the fuel actually used? If so, will the Minister explain how it can be an environmental matter to impose VAT on standing charges which do not vary according to the amount of gas or electricity used?

Mr. Nelson: My right hon. Friend has made the position perfectly clear on this matter. I have nothing more to add.

Value Added Tax Charities

Mr. Rathbone: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what consideration he is giving to relieving registered charities of the present VAT costs.

Mr. Dorrell: There are a number of measures in the Budget to assist charitable giving, as well as a special transitional scheme to help charities which receive income from dividends.

Mr. Rathbone: I welcome those measures in the Budget and my hon. Friend's reminder, but could he not see his way to removing some of the VAT disincentives to contributors to charities as well as the burden on charities, which are now doing more and more and better and better, as needs must?

Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is right to praise those involved with charities for the increasing contribution that they make. We welcome that, and we have given extensive support to it. We believe that the best way to help the charity movement to carry out its task is to provide incentives to those who give money to charity. That is why


we have increased substantially the range of tax reliefs available—the majority of them on the giving of money to charities rather than the expenditure of money by charities. In total, those tax reliefs now have a value of £1 billion, of which £150 million amounts to direct VAT reliefs.

Mr. Mandelson: In view of the additional burden on charities created by the extension of VAT to fuel, will the Minister clarify once and for all whether the VAT extension will apply to standing charges on fuel bills, and will he tell us clearly what exactly is the environmental justification for that?

Mr. Dorrell: There is absolutely no secret about this. It has been said from the Dispatch Box repeatedly since Budget day that the answer is yes, it does apply to standing charges. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer made clear to those who were listening to his answer a few moments ago, to try to levy VAT on energy without levying it on standing charges would be to establish an easy and obvious avoidance loophole.

Wage Costs

Mr. Patrick Thompson: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the growth in unit wage costs in (a) the United Kingdom and (b) other EC countries over the past year.

Mr. Portillo: While over the latest year manufacturing unit wage costs in Germany rose by more than 9 per cent. in Britain they fell by 1 per cent. That is excellent news for British jobs.

Mr. Thompson: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, which confirms that manufacturing productivity in Britain is better than it is in Germany—and also, I believe, in Japan. Does my right hon. Friend agree that there has never been a better opportunity for manufacturing firms in Norwich and throughout the country to exploit opportunities in world markets and in the single market, and that it is bad news that there are those in this country at this time who are willing to encourage strike action in any part of the economy?

Mr. Portillo: My hon. Friend is right. We expect competitiveness to be about 20 per cent. better during the year ahead than in the year gone by. Strikes are the worst possible advertisement to those thinking of investing in this country. Those who are thinking of investing in this country will want to hear clearly from the Labour party that it condemns the strikes and sees that strikes are pointless and self-defeating. They will also want the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) to get up now and condemn the strikes.

Mr. Flynn: Will the Minister confirm that we have some of the lowest unit wage costs in Europe, which accounts for some of our attraction to overseas industry, but that a major part of the budget of pensioners and others on low incomes will be the standing charges on their fuel bills? Those standing charges will amount sometimes to 50 per cent. and sometimes to three quarters of their fuel bills. That has nothing to do with fuel consumption. Do the

Government believe that it is sensible to tackle global warming by increasing the number of deaths from hypothermia?

Mr. Portillo: The Labour party is not very good at listening. It has heard the answer to that point time after time. The hon. Gentleman is saying that he does not believe in flexibility, that he does not believe in competition, that he does not believe in attracting jobs to this country. I am pleased to say that Bosch, which recently decided to move a plant from Stuttgart to Cardiff, knows the scene. The Federation of German Industry has said that at the Cardiff plant there is "strong motivation" and a "flexibility unknown in Germany". Why does the hon. Gentleman not welcome that?

Mr. Oppenheim: Will my right hon. Friend cast his mind back to the late 1970s, when companies such as Ford and Vauxhall were falling over themselves to move production from Britain, and compare that with the current situation, in which, for the first time in 20 years, Vauxhall and Ford are exporting substantial numbers of cars? Those companies are moving the production of engines and components back to Britain and, as my right hon. Friend has pointed out, companies such as Bosch are coming to this country, not because of low wages but because of high productivity, quality manufacturing and an environment that is good for business. Do not Opposition Members have an absolute cheek to complain about the Government's record, bearing in mind that when their party was in power manufacturing output fell and productivity was appaling, whereas under the present Government manufacturing output has risen and productivity is at record levels?

Mr. Portillo: Manufacturing productivity is at record levels, as are manufacturing exports. We are a net exporter of television sets, and we are improving our position in relation to motor cars. Close to my hon. Friend's constituency in Derbyshire, Toyota is investing £750 million at Burnaston and thereby creating 3,000 new jobs. The Labour party, by shouting, demonstrates that it has no interest in new jobs, that it is interested only in running Britain down. Luckily, it will not be in power in the foreseeable future. Luckily, too, its position will not put people off who are thinking of investing in Britain.

Value Added Tax (Fuel)

Mr. Loyden: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the cost in a full year to the average householder's energy bills of the introduction of value added tax at (a) 8 per cent. and (b) 17½ per cent.

Mr. Dorrell: It is not possible to make an accurate assessment. It depends on future pricing decisions by the fuel companies as well as on the effect of those pricing decisions on consumption levels.

Mr. Loyden: How will the Minister ensure that the operation of benefits takes into account the 17·5 per cent. increase in VAT? He cannot simply rely on the retail prices index rate, which will be 8 per cent. Is not this a clear indication that the Government have no intention of meeting in full the needs of pensioners and people on low pay, who will have to pay the extra 17·5 per cent. on their bills?

Mr. Dorrell: We have said absolutely clearly that we intend to provide extra help in advance of the implementation of the price increases, and that this will be targeted at the 8 million households in receipt of income-related benefits. Assistance will go to those who need it, while the rest of us make a contribution to controlling the deficit—a matter which is of no interest at all to the Labour party.

Mrs. Browning: If the extent of uprating is to be announced in November, will my hon. Friend please take into account the fact that it should reflect the increase for a full year, including the critical winter months? I am conscious of the fact that the period between the Budget in March and the announcement in November is only eight months.

Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend may rest assured that in calculating the increases to be made as part of the planning of next year's uprating we shall take account of all the costs that recipients have to face in the year during which those benefits are received. Furthermore, we have made it clear that the cold weather payments system will be adjusted to take account of the VAT changes that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced.

Mr. Gordon Brown: Given the hon. Gentleman's admission with regard to standing charges, will he now tell us how much more, in pounds and pence, a typical pensioner will have to pay because of the imposition of VAT on standing charges for gas and electricity? Will he also explain the environmental justification for that imposition?

Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Gentleman might explain to the House why Labour thought that it was entirely consistent to impose VAT on telephone standing charges. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] The simplest layman—apart, apparently, from the hon. Gentleman—can see that the standing charge for the supply of energy to a household is part of the integrated cost that has to be charged by the supplier. The hon. Gentleman is pressing upon us the creation of a blatant tax loophole—something which he does not normally like to do. I can assure him that we shall resist his pressure.

Mr. John Greenway: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the majority of member states of the European Community levy VAT on energy costs for domestic consumers? Does he agree that in terms of energy costs the most important thing for people on low incomes is the need to keep energy prices down? Is not the statement made on Monday by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade indicative of the fact that the Government are prepared to allow the market to bring down energy costs? Will my hon. Friend also confirm that the extra money given to the coal industry will not be reflected in energy charges?

Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is almost right about the European Community. He said that the majority of EC member states charge VAT on domestic fuel and power. The truth is that they all charge VAT on domestic fuel and power. He is right to stress that the key issue is the price that the consumer has to pay. We are certainly accepting no lectures from the Opposition about electricity prices.

Electricity prices went up by 20 per cent. every year Labour was in power and by more than a quarter in real terms.
It would be nice to hear a welcome from the Opposition for the fact that in the past 10 years, since we reformed the industries, electricity prices have fallen by 8 per cent. in real terms and gas prices have fallen by 15 per cent. in real terms. That shows our commitment to the proper pricing of energy.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Mudie: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 1 April.

The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. Mudie: Will the Prime Minister join me in congratulating the Home Affairs Select Committee on its decision to inquire into party political funding? Will he also join the Opposition in urging full co-operation and disclosure—that disclosure to cover items such as the £17 million secretly paid to the Conservatives to cover the cost of the previous election?

The Prime Minister: Of course the Conservative party will submit a memorandum as requested and will of course be available to submit oral evidence. We have always said that we are consistently opposed to state aid for political parties. If the hon. Gentleman is being so sanctimonious, I hope that he might consider whether his party is truly in favour of state aid or not.

Mr. Sykes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 1 April.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Sykes: Will the Prime Minister take this opportunity to express his condemnation of the proposed rail strike tomorrow—

The Prime Minister: rose—[Interruption.]

Mr. Sykes: —and does he agree that the state monopoly should be broken up as soon as possible? Has he noticed, by the way, how many Labour Members have scurried off to their constituencies before their union paymasters go on strike tomorrow?

The Prime Minister: There is no doubt that it was worth waiting for the rest of my hon. Friend's question. I entirely agree that the strike is deplorable. What is equally deplorable is the deafening silence from the Opposition who know very well that, when it comes to strikes, they are on strike in terms of condemning them. They are still the strikers' friends.

Mr. John Smith: The Prime Minister will, I hope, be aware of the deep disquiet in the country about the events in Srebrenica. Does he agree that it is vital that the United Nations is enabled to resume its humanitarian relief


convoys as a matter of urgency? Will the Government make it crystal clear to the Serbs that their barbaric disregard for humanity is simply not tolerable?

The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman on both points. We are appalled by the plight of Srebrenica. It is terrible, and we believe that the Serbs must co-operate with the United Nations humanitarian effort. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman will know, British aid workers and British troops have been instrumental in providing more aid in Bosnia than any other country. That is a proud record, and we wish to see it continue. I align myself entirely with the right hon. and learned Gentleman's comments about Srebrenica.

Mr. Smith: May I associate the Opposition with the tribute that the Prime Minister paid to British aid workers and British troops, who are performing an invaluable role in assisting the humanitarian effort? But does the Prime Minister accept that if there is to be a lessening of the sickening events involving innocent women and children which, sadly, we have been witnessing on our television screens, sanctions must be applied more comprehensively and effectively against Serbia, and that the international community simply must insist that humanitarian convoys be accompanied by military escorts?

The Prime Minister: I certainly support the idea that there should be much stricter enforcement of sanctions; we would be perfectly prepared to contemplate the widening of sanctions as well as the stricter enforcement of existing sanctions. That matter is under discussion between our allies and ourselves at the moment.

Mr. Fry: As we enter the era of the council tax, will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating Conservative-controlled Wellingborough borough council, which is to levy an average tax of £177—by far the lowest in the country? Is that not a wonderful achievement, considering that services have not been cut, and is it not the clearest possible signal to the electorate of this country to vote Conservative in this year's local government elections?

The Prime Minister: I believe that there is widespread understanding around the country that the council tax is the fairest method that we have yet had of dealing with local government finance. Not only that, but those people who are fortunate enough to have a Conservative council will find that, band for band, they will pay less council tax than those whose council is Labour controlled.

Mr. Ashdown: Does the Prime Minister not realise that being appalled by Srebrenica is not good enough? Being appalled by Srebrenica will not save a single life. The question is what the Prime Minister and the British Government intend to do about Srebrenica. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that that town and its 60,000 Muslim inhabitants are designated by the Vance-Owen plan as part of the Muslim territory. Will he therefore recommend to other western powers that we protect Srebrenica from being annihilated by the Serbs—or is this to be yet another example of our standing by the side, wringing our hands and saying that nothing can be done until it is too late for anything to be done?

The Prime Minister: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will weigh carefully what he says on that matter, because I think that what he has said will be deeply

offensive to the 2,300 troops that we have in Bosnia, to their families and to the many other people who are concerned about their safety there. They are doing a magnificent job; in many ways we have led the assistance being given to all parts of Bosnia over recent months. We strongly welcome the Security Council resolution enforcing the no-fly zone. My hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement will have more to say about that after Question Time.

Mr. Page: May I make my right hon. Friend aware that the trustees of the Maxwell pension fund will meet later this month to discuss the common investment fund, which now stands at about £180 million? I urge him to contact those trustees and beg them to have a distribution or a partial distribution of that fund so that, in conjunction with the Cuckney fund, the pensioners can be paid while the missing millions are traced and a long-term solution is put in place.

The Prime Minister: I certainly join my hon. Friend in urging the trustees and the liquidator of the common investment fund to restore advance payments as soon as possible. I understand the difficulties, and I hope that the trustees will be able to respond.

War Crimes (Yugoslavia)

Dr. Godman: To ask the Prime Minister when he last met the leaders of other member states of the Security Council of the United Nations to discuss the implementation of UN resolution 808; and if he will make a statement.

The Prime Minister: The United Nations Secretary-General is due to produce a report by the end of April on the most effective and rapid means of establishing an ad hoc tribunal. United Nations member states have been invited to contribute views on an informal basis. Several states, including the United Kingdom, have so contributed.

Dr. Godman: This is the first time since Nuremberg and Tokyo that an international war crimes tribunal has been set up. Unlike Nuremberg and Tokyo, however, is it not likely that the implementation of United Nations resolution 808 will turn out to be an exercise in futility? Has not the United States State Department already labelled those murderous leaders, Milosevic and Karadzic, as potential war criminals? Are they to be granted immunity from war crimes proceedings? Who will apprehend the criminals? Will British soldiers be involved? Will British police officers and lawyers be involved? It is surely a charade.

The Prime Minister: I do not believe that it will be an exercise in futility. There are complex matters of international law to be determined, which are still under discussion within the United Nations, but it is intended, where possible, to ensure that people who commit war crimes face a tribunal and are punished satisfactorily and suitably.

Engagements

Mr. Hendry: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 1 April.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Hendry: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the opposition of the police, my constituents and myself to the proposed all-night rave scheduled to take place in my constituency at the end of May. Does he agree that such events have less to do with entertainment than with organised crime and pushing illegal and dangerous drugs? Does he agree that the High Peak, as one of the most popular national parks in the world, is a wholly unsuitable venue for such an event? May I assure him that he has the support of the Conservative side of the House for the Government's proposal to give the police more power to tackle these people? Will he ensure that the measures are brought forward as soon as possible?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend touches on a point which will concern many parents. The statement of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary yesterday shows beyond doubt that the Government are determined to crack down on those who ignore the rights and property of law-abiding citizens. It is wholly unacceptable behaviour. That is why we are giving the police tougher powers to deal with it.

Mr. Simpson: Is the Prime Minister aware of the report recently highlighted in the Nottingham Evening Post, which illustrated that claims for severe hardship payments had increased in the east midlands by over 750 per cent. in the last three years, leaving large numbers of young people with no jobs, no cash and no hope? Will he explain how he has failed to deliver jobs to those young people and when will he restore entitlement to benefit payments to them?

The Prime Minister: I should mention to the hon. Gentleman that payments from the social fund could not have been made until we introduced the legislation to do so. No such comparable payments existed. As for jobs, it is interesting to note that for the first time in several weeks—in fact, since the unemployment figures fell last time—an Opposition Member has mentioned unemployment. We continue to take measures which will seek to increase jobs for all sectors of the community.

Mr. Kynoch: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 1 April.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some mdoments ago.

Mr. Kynoch: I welcome the support given to small businesses in the recent Budget. Is my right hon. Friend aware that my area of Scotland has benefited significantly from the oil and gas industry, and in particular from oil exploration in the North sea? Is he further aware that the changes in petroleum revenue tax have provoked enormous support from my constituents? Will he ensure that the transition to what many oil companies regard as

a better low tax regime is smooth and does not cause undue disturbance and disruption in the industry in the meantime?

The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend will know, many people have welcomed the changes in taxes, not least because of the big encouragement to development that is clearly evident in the new structure. That development will create future jobs, a matter which every hon. Member is concerned about. I take the figures from memory, but I seem to recall that in the year 1991–92 the previous petroleum revenue tax system actually cost the taxpayer £200 million net.

Mr. William Ross: Has the Prime Minister noticed that the Prime Minister of the Irish Republic said that the idea that the Republic was a haven for terrorists is a fallacy? Does he understand that my constituents were surprised about that until they realised that today is the first day of April?

The Prime Minister: I know that the hon. Gentleman feels very strongly about the matter, but I must say to him that he should not confuse the actions of a minority with the views and instincts of the majority of people. I do not believe that the majority of people in the Republic of Ireland support the activities of the IRA, and I believe that their response to recent events is a clear illustration that that is the case. I hope and believe that the vast majority of people in the Republic of Ireland will join the hon. Gentleman and every other hon. Member in the House in condemning the IRA and all its murderous activities.

Mr. Amess: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 1 April.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Amess: As we approach the first anniversary of the re-election of my right hon. Friend's Government, does the Prime Minister recall that only four weeks after that event a Conservative council was elected in Basildon? What conclusions does my right hon. Friend draw from the fact that, under the council tax, Conservative Basildon will, for the first time, not be capped while nearby socialist-controlled Harlow district council will be?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend has made a profession of making Basildon world famous and is doing it remarkably well. As it is also the anniversary of my hon. Friend's re-election, I offer him my congratulations on that. When he won, we knew that we had won, and it was an especially sweet victory.
It is no coincidence that a Conservative council produces a lower council tax charge than a Labour council. That is what we would expect. That is what we see in Conservative councils up and down the country at all levels of the council tax.

No-fly Zone (Bosnia)

Dr. David Clark: (by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the military implications for Britain of the enforcement of the no-fly zone over Bosnia.

The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Jonathan Aitken): Following the passing last night of Security Council resolution 816, which calls for the enforcement of the no-fly zone over Bosnia, the Government are actively considering the military implications. Should further violations of the no-fly zone occur, the resolution requires that all necessary measures be taken to secure compliance. It is expected that the United Nations Secretary-General will invite NATO to take on that responsibility.
In principle, the United Kingdom is willing to contribute aircraft for the enforcement task. We are discussing with NATO the nature and scale of the United Kingdom contribution and those of other nations. We hope that, as a result of the passing of the resolution and the steps which we are now taking, violations of the no-fly zone will cease.

Mr. Clark: I assure the Minister that he has the support of Labour Members in the enforcement of the no-fly zone as a symbol of the world's belief in the need to enforce United Nations resolutions and, at the same time, sending a message to the warring factions of the necessity for them to sign a peace accord.
Can the Minister explain the logic behind the intention, as I understand it, of having an Italian air force general in charge of the operation involving planes solely from the United States, the United Kingdom and France? In view of the sensitivity of this high-risk operation and the danger of it escalating, is he satisfied that the chain of command will not lead to confusion, thus placing the whole operation at risk? Does he agree that the enforcement must be completely even-handed, with the Serbs, the Croats and the Muslim supporting planes being treated in exactly the same manner?
Finally, what is the position on helicopters from any party being used for evacuation of injured personnel? Am I right in assuming that such mercy missions are permitted under the United Nations resolution?

Mr. Aitken: I am most grateful for the support which the Opposition have given on this occasion. As the hon. Gentleman rightly says, that support sends a message from all parts of the House that we wish to see the forces of decency and humanity in the ascendant instead of some of the forces of evil which have created such havoc and wickedness in recent days.
The hon. Gentleman asked various questions. First, this is a United Nations operation and, therefore, the decisions on command are a matter for the United Nations and not Her Majesty's Government. In response to the hon. Gentleman's question about chain of command, I can tell him that we shall be under NATO command and control. We are satisfied that that is likely to be an entirely effective chain of command and control.
The hon. Gentleman requested that the no-fly zone should be enforced entirely even-handedly and impartially against all violators. I am sure that the United Nations will operate that policy, as the resolution indicates.
As for his question on evacuation helicopters and mercy flights, the position is difficult because exemptions to the no-fly zone can be made only by people in authority on the ground allowing those exemptions. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the issue needs to be addressed by the United Nations personnel on the ground. It is vital that mercy flights are allowed somehow or other to continue.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: Will my hon. Friend make it plain that Serbian violation has led to the necessary passing of the resolution? Does he agree that the credibility of the international organisation is at stake because if an internationally recognised state can be extinguished, credibility goes? Does he agree further that the killing must now stop?

Mr. Aitken: I entirely agree with the view expressed by my hon. Friend. The killing must stop and all forces of decency must make every possible effort to ensure that that outcome is achieved. It is probably true that Serbian planes have committed most of the violations of the no-fly zone. However, the situation is a complex and confusing situation and there have been some other violations. So I can answer my hon. Friend's question only on the balance of probabilities, although we believe that the bombing incidents last weekend were probably caused by Serbian aircraft.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: I, too, welcome the Minister's announcement. But does he accept that the declaration of the no-fly zone some months ago, followed by a lack of enforcement until now, has simply served to encourage the Bosnian Serbs to believe that the international community lacks the will and resolve to deal with them? When the hon. Gentleman looks back on those wasted months, during which atrocity has been piled on atrocity, does he feel no sense of regret that more decisive action was not taken before now?

Mr. Aitken: I do not accept the premise of the hon. Gentleman's question that the past few months of careful co-ordination and fine relief efforts have been wasted months. It has been a difficult situation in which certain participants in the conflict have behaved much worse and more wickedly than anyone could have expected. But the will is now there. Last night's decision to enforce the no-fly zone is an important signal which makes it clear that the will exists to deal with the recent developments of unpleasantness.

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I, too, welcome the statement made by my hon. Friend. When the matter was last discussed in the House, the Government assured us that special steps and contingency plans would be arranged to ensure the continuing safety of British ground troops. Are such plans still in operation?

Mr. Aitken: My hon. Friend can rest assured that contingency plans for the safety of our troops are under careful and constant review. We have formidable such plans because the safety of our troops is paramount.

Mr. John McWilliam: While welcoming the Minister's statement and fully supporting the intention to enforce the United Nations resolution, may I ask the


Minister to give the House at least a view of the rules of engagement for enforcing the no-fly zone, given in particular the technical problem with dealing with most of the incursions, which are by rotary-wing, not fixed-wing, aircraft?

Mr. Aitken: I can tell the House that enforcement action will take a graduated approach depending on the degree to which violations persist. The rules of engagement, which will be drawn up in co-ordination between the United Nations Secretary-General, the United Nations Protection Force and the member states concerned, will reflect some of the technical difficulties to which the hon. Gentleman rightly referred.

Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood): Can my hon. Friend assure the House that it will be made quite clear to all parties in Bosnia that, were Royal Air Force or Royal Navy aircrew to be missing on missions to enforce the no-fly zone, whether for technical or operational reasons, it would be expected by Her Majesty's Government that they would be returned safe and sound at the earliest possible date, seeing that they are conducting not warlike operations but a peace-enforcing mission on the part of the United Nations? Secondly, can my hon. Friend tell the House whether, if Royal Air Force or Royal Navy aircraft are either shot at by anti-aircraft artillery or missiles, or illuminated by radar controlling such anti-aircraft equipment, Her Majesty's aircraft will be able to take appropriate retaliatory action?

Mr. Aitken: The answer to my hon. Friend's second question is yes, aircraft of the Royal Air Force will be able to take whatever action, evasive or retaliatory, is deemed appropriate. As regards his question about aircraft which may go missing, I entirely accept his point that it is imperative that all people in that area are aware that people missing must be returned safe and sound—in accordance with the normal rules, which, as he rightly points out, are not the rules of war, because we are in a peacekeeping situation.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: May I say to the Minister that the tragedy of the dying over recent months and yesterday must rest uneasily on the consciences—

Madam Speaker: Order. I must caution the hon. Gentleman and any other hon. Members who wish to raise questions. This is a very limited question and it concerns the enforcement of the no-fly zone. It is not concerned with what the hon. Gentleman was leading into. I hope that he will restrict his question to the question I have allowed.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: My question relates direct ay to the failure of western Governments to act before now and I feel that I should have the right to put it. Is not the tragedy of the dying over recent months, and in particular yesterday, as reported on British television, something that must rest uneasily on the consciences of the leaders of the western democracies, who in my view have failed miserably to act over the last nine months?

Mr. Aitken: The question is about the military implications of the no-fly zone. The hon. Gentleman seeks to tempt me into political comment, which I think it is right for me not to be drawn into.

Sir Anthony Durant: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the things that is necessary to keep the aircraft flying is fuel? Is it not one of the problems that fuel is getting through up the Danube and is keeping those aircraft flying?

Mr. Aitken: My hon. Friend is perfectly correct. However, I notice from today's news bulletins that new steps are being taken, particularly on the Danube with patrol boats, to make sure that the embargoes are not broken with the kind of frequency that they have been broken and that the fuel which gets through will be much more limited.

Mr. David Trimble: We would all like to see effective international action, not just on the no-fly zone but on other issues in Bosnia as well. Is not the lesson of recent years, however, that there cannot be effective international action without an effective international consensus? That consensus does not exist in the Balkans, or wider. Against that background, is not there the danger that this will be yet another ineffective measure which will be just another cruel deception of the people of Bosnia?

Mr. Aitken: The hon. Gentleman perhaps underestimates the significance of the fact that there has been a great international consensus behind these United Nations resolutions and particularly this enforcement resolution, which for the first time, as I understand it, has been given the full support of the Russian Government in taking part in what looks like being a NATO-controlled operation. The entire international community is rallying in horror against the atrocities that have been committed and is showing a new will and resolve. I hope that the message goes clearly to the malefactors.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does my hon. Friend accept that the last two supplementary questions have perhaps been the most relevant? While I fully support the statement that he made to the House, as I believe the whole House overwhelmingly does, without total international consensus on not only the no-fly zone but the trade sanctions against Serbia and Montenegro which are being flagrantly breached even by members of the European Community—I refer particularly to Greece—the no-fly zone is a fraud. Will he work with his colleagues in Government and other countries throughout the world to ensure that there is total consensus so that the sanctions and the no-fly zone work together and are totally effective?

Mr. Aitken: I agree with my hon. Friend that the greater the strengthening of international consensus, the better. However, he underestimates the increasing effectiveness of the sanctions. The entire world underestimates the degree of revulsion and horror that all civilised nations are feeling, and as a result the consensus behind last night's United Nations resolution is more formidable and united than ever before.

Mr. Max Madden: When were the Government persuaded to support the enforcement of the no-fly zone? If it is found to be ineffective, and the Serbians refuse to support the Vance-Owen peace plan, how much longer will the people of Bosnia have to wait for the necessary arms to defend their state against aggression sponsored by Serbia and to stop the murders, rape and ethnic cleansing?

Mr. Aitken: First, let me make it clear that the Government have no intention of relaxing the arms embargo in favour of any of the participants. In answer to the hon. Gentleman's first question, the Government have always been ready to enforce the no-fly zone, which has been in place since October. Once the evidence was clear that the no-fly zone was being violated, we and our partners in the United Nations were willing to go ahead with the enforcement resolution which was passed last night.

Mr. David Lidington: Can my hon. Friend assure my constituents at RAF Strike Command and their families that any actions asked of British service men will be within international law and that those service men will be given military objectives which are both clearly defined and attainable?

Mr. Aitken: I am glad to give my hon. Friend and his constituents that assurance.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Does the Minister agree that what has been said today shows that the British Government are getting deeper into the war zone? Does he accept that one reason why he said what he did today was to safeguard the British troops who some people said would have to be safeguarded if we went in? Does he accept that the contending armies and forces on the ground for whom the no-fly zone has been implemented are using arms, artillery and weapons mainly, but not entirely, from Common Market countries? Does he accept that Croatia gets most of its arms from Germany? Much of it is from east Germany and is channelled through west Germany because a hell of a lot of artillery is going spare there—millions of pounds worth. British forces are now supposed to try and keep the peace and are getting more deeply involved while those fighting on the ground are being assisted by Common Market countries. The truth is that the new world order which they talked about grandly three years ago at the end of the Gulf war is nowhere to be found because some Common Market countries, led by Germany, are ensuring that Croatia is armed to the teeth.

Mr. Aitken: I believe that the hon. Gentleman's comments are misguided and in sharp contrast to the constructive contribution made by the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark). Of course, it is true that this enforcement action involves some risks. On the radio this morning the hon. Member for South Shields described it as a calculated risk. It is a calculation made in the interests of humanity, decency and upholding the right and proper standards of the international consensus against the forces of evil.

Mr. Mark Wolfson: Will my hon. Friend go a little further in confirming that the command and control structure under which our military forces will be operating is a NATO one? Does he agree that that clearly demonstrates the importance of the training given in NATO to working together and that it will increase the safety of our men in these operations?

Mr. Aitken: I agree and confirm the point made by my hon. Friend. As I said in my main answer to the private notice question, we expect that the Secretary-General will invite NATO to take on the enforcement responsibility. In

that situation, it will be NATO's tried and trusted command and control systems which will operate the enforcement of the no-fly zone.

Mr. David Winnick: Is the Minister aware that the imposition of a no-fly zone should be but a minimum step by the international community, under the authority of the United Nations, to protect those most at risk from continued Serbian aggression and crimes, which are almost at the level of the sort of crimes committed in Yugoslavia during the second world war? Is the Minister further aware that if such crimes and atrocities that he has spoken about—and rightly deplored—continue, the international community will be expected to do more? We cannot wash our hands of the terrible things that are happening which are crimes against humanity. This country has a responsibility, as does the United Nations.

Mr. Aitken: The Secretary-General of the United Nations will be reporting by 22 April on one part of the hon. Gentleman's question. In terms of the overall situation, we believe that the no-fly zone enforcement will send an important signal to those who have been perpetrating the greatest evil and wickedness. In addition, it will stop some of the aerial bombing, which has been another miserable feature of this wretched conflict.

Mr. David Tredinnick: Because of the close bonds between the Slavic peoples, and in particular between Serbia and Russia, does my hon. Friend agree that it is essential to keep Russia supportive and that failure to do so would make enforcement almost impossible? Does he further agree that there-are dangerous implications for Russian domestic politics, because if we have a NATO conflict with Serbia, it could encourage the hard-liners in Russia and undo all the work that has been done on reforms?

Mr. Aitken: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that Russian support for the international consensus is of very great importance. As I said a few moments ago, I welcome the support of Russia for this enforcement resolution. It is also important that Russia, through diplomatic channels, continues to keep up pressure on the Serbian leadership. I am pleased to be able to report that the Deputy Foreign Minister of Russia, Mr. Churkin, is in Belgrade and I hope that he is urging a more humanitarian and sensible line on the Serbian leadership.

Mr. Harry Barnes: In an ethnic conflict, is not it important that any involvement we have should be even-handed, particularly for those people in Serbia who are opposed to what their forces are doing? Their position would be advanced in Serbia if it was seen that action was also levelled against excesses by Croats and Muslims.

Mr. Aitken: The hon. Gentleman makes an entirely valid point. Several different parties and combatants are involved in the confused situation. There is a difference between some elements of the Serb leadership, who seem to on the side of the appalling atrocities and ethnic cleansing, and the large number—perhaps a majority—of decent Serbian people who thoroughly oppose what some of the leaders and soldiers are doing. The hon. Gentleman's distinction is well taken.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Are there any plans to send more British troops to the area at present?


Will Britain alone be responsible for financing its part in the operation, or will that cost be spread among others, which would show a more international involvement in the important operation?

Mr. Aitken: The cost-sharing burdens, which are still to be worked out, are likely to be on a United Nations basis. To answer my hon. Friend's first question, no plans and no decisions have been made about the possibility of sending additional British troops to former Yugoslavia.

Mr. George Stevenson: While welcoming the United Nations resolution on the enforcement of the no-fly zone, I understand that it is the first time that the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation has been involved in that way. Given that the British are in command of the rapid reaction force under NATO, what are the implications for the rapid reaction force of the resolution and decision? Does the Minister rule out the involvement of that force in the conflict in former Yugoslavia?

Mr. Aitken: I do not think that it is wise to be drawn into hypothetical and contingency ideas. There are certainly no immediate implications for the rapid reaction force, but the sort of planning that we currently envisage involves a NATO command 'and control structure and a Royal Air Force contribution to the force of aircraft that will patrol and enforce the no-fly zone.

Mr. John Bowis: Does my hon. Friend agree that, as we rightly raise the stakes to tackle aggression, so we raise the risks faced daily by our aid workers and the British soldiers who support them? Does he agree that those who accuse this country of doing nothing should reflect deeply on the volumes of aid that have reached the people in Bosnia and former Yugoslavia as a result of the courage and commitment of British aid workers and British forces, which is why they should be paramount in our British policy?

Mr. Aitken: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. Britain has made a remarkable success of its humanitarian operations—both of the humanitarian aid workers and of the convoys escorted by our forces. Our battalion group has escorted 403 convoys carrying 32,000 tonnes of aid. Those escorting duties have involved considerable risks, which may increase as a result of the no-fly zone enforcement action that has now been taken, although we are making contingency plans to protect our troops against escalation of those risks as far as possible. My hon. Friend is right to emphasise the courage and devotion of our aid workers, who have done so well in an impossibly difficult situation.

Business of the House

Mrs. Margaret Beckett: Will the Leader of the House state the business for the first week after the recess?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): Yes, Madam. The business for the first week after the recess will be as follows:
WEDNESDAY 14 APRIL—Second Reading of the Criminal Justice Bill [Lords].
THURSDAY 15 APRIL—European Communities (Amendment) Bill: progress in Committee, 20th day.
FRIDAY 16 APRIL—There will be a debate on the partnership between the public and private sectors in delivering local government services, on a motion for the Adjournment of the House. MONDAY 19 APRIL—European Communities (Amendment) Bill: progress in Committee, 21st day.

Mrs. Beckett: I thank the Leader of the House for that statement and I am sure that everyone will be pleased to know that we have another two days on Maastricht ahead of us after Easter.
Will the Leader of the House arrange for a debate in Government time on the efficient and effective use of public money? Does he appreciate that on the day we are seeing at least the partial disappearance of the poll tax, on which £14 billion to £16 billion worth of public money was wasted, we are also seeing reports of millions being wasted on computerisation in the Wessex health authority, money wasted in the Ministry of Defence and money apparently wasted on the activities of the Inland Revenue as a consequence of the rushed privatisation of its postal deliveries? As all this waste and mismanagement flows from actions related to Government policy, it is appropriate that such a debate be scheduled in Government time. May I press on him that that debate should be over and above the debate for which the Labour party has repeatedly pressed, in which the House is allowed to examine the details of the Government's public expenditure programme? He knows that the debate is outstanding and that we are anxious to have it.
Does the Leader of the House recall that we pressed for a debate on London affairs? Again, in the light of the recent announcement on what is happening in the London ambulance service, it is important to give scope for further debates on a number of issues of concern to those in the capital city.
Finally, I again remind the right hon. Gentleman that we are pressing for a day of Opposition time.

Mr. Newton: I am rather relieved that the right hon. Lady started by welcoming the two further days on Maastricht. I am sure that that view is widely held on both sides of the House, but it is perhaps in conflict with her later demands for a whole series of debates on other matters, to which I am not in a position to respond as fully as she would like, despite the great good will with which I approach the Easter recess. I note her various requests. I am not sure whether it was in her list today, or whether she left it out, but she has before asked for some general


Opposition time as well. I tried to respond in a reasonably forthcoming way about that last week. I will rest on that relatively friendly point.
I should point out, however, that two of the debates that the right hon. Lady demanded will take place later tonight—albeit, I accept, not formally in Government or Opposition time. By kind permission of Madam Speaker, there is no less than three hours on Government policies in greater London and the south-east, which should be reached at a reasonable hour of the night, and a little later on—possibly at a less reasonable hour, or even close to breakfast time—a debate on the conduct of Ministers in relation to the London ambulance service. If the right hon. Lady is willing to lose a little more sleep than she did the other night, when I was still here, she can join in those debates.

Mr. Richard Tracey: I am sure that the House appreciates the constraints on my right hon. Friend and the good-hearted way in which he approaches them. However, it is four weeks today since the end of the Committee stage of the National Lottery etc. Bill and there are many good causes outside the House waiting for Report and Third Reading. Could we have a date for that soon?

Mr. Newton: I am mindful of the fact that my hon. Friend asked me about this last week or the week before. I am looking for time to complete the remaining stages of the Bill. Without making further extensive reference to the European Communities (Amendment) Bill, I hope my hon. Friend will understand that I have to make finely balanced judgments about the order of events.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: As someone who has been trying to facilitate a bit of progress on the European Communities (Amendment) Bill, may I ask the Leader of the House to confirm that he will be able to announce at an early stage that there is to be a summer recess, never mind the dates for it? On a more serious note, after Easter will he arrange for a statement or a debate in Government time on the general agreement on tariffs and trade because the American Government and the new French Government will have an impact on that matter, which is regarded as important by Members on both sides of the House?

Mr. Newton: On the hon. Gentleman's latter question, I confirm that that is an important matter. He will know that there are continued efforts, in which the British Government very much play their proper part, to ensure a successful outcome of the negotiations. I cannot promise a debate, but I will bear the hon. Gentleman's request in mind. As to his first question, I thank him for the constructive role that he and many of his colleagues have played in our proceedings. He deserves a holiday, perhaps more than some others in the House.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. I still have another statement to call and private Members' time is precious. Therefore, in order that we might proceed swiftly, will hon. Members put one brisk question which can be given a brisk answer?

Sir Jim Spicer: May we have an early debate on the cost and quality of water, a subject which

would be of great interest to all hon. Members and our constituents? I ask for that against the background of the paper issued by Mr. Ian Byatt, the director general of Ofwat, and the open letter that he has now addressed to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.

Mr. Newton: I have not yet seen the letter addressed to my right hon. and learned Friend, but I think that I know what is in my hon. Friend's mind and I well understand that. He will know that the EC will be considering the revision of the water directive later this year. I can assure him that the United Kingdom Government will be making their view known as part of that process and ensuring that the Commission is made aware of the cost of meeting any new standards which might be considered in the course of that review.

Mr. Bryan Davies: When we have the debate on the use of taxpayers' money for which my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) pressed so eloquently, may we debate ministerial perks? How can the Secretary of State for Social Security justify a sum 10 times the cost of a flight from his holiday home in France to return to ministerial meetings at Westminster?

Mr. Newton: I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security will take note of the hon. Gentleman's point. I did not—rather clearly, I think—promise the debate for which the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) asked, nor am I promising it to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. David Porter: Should the new French Government fail to get to grips with their pirate fishermen, and should the Royal Navy find it necessary to take a dozen of them at random and shoot them during the recess, will my right hon. Friend recall the House so that we can discuss not just that but the failure of the entire common fisheries policy?

Mr. Newton: It would be quite likely that, were the event that my hon. Friend postulates to take place, I should need to arrange a debate. Therefore, for a variety of reasons, including that one, I rather hope that it will not. My hon. Friend will be aware of the action taken by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to impress on the French Government our concern about these matters. That is perhaps the proper way to deal with them.

Mr. Alex Salmond: It will not be Frenchmen that oil workers in the north-east of Scotland will want to shoot.
Will the Leader of the House arrange for an early statement from the Chancellor of the Exchequer so that he can retract and dissociate himself from the comments of a senior Treasury official yesterday, who said that for 10,000 job losses we are securing £400 million to £500 million in extra taxation? I know that it is 1 April and that the Chancellor is having difficulty with figures, but is that some sick joke being perpetrated on the north-east of Scotland? Are the Government really arguing that that is a price well worth paying for additional oil taxation? Will the Leader of the House arrange for an early debate as soon as possible after Easter so that now that those figures are becoming known Conservative Members for the


north-east of Scotland who supported the measure and Labour Members who abstained in the vital vote will have the opportunity to reconsider, along with the Government, that damaging tax on the oil industry?

Mr. Newton: I have three comments which I hope, Madam Speaker, will be as crisp as you would wish. First, the hon. Gentleman will have heard what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said not very long ago. Secondly, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has just been here answering questions and I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman sought to ask him that. Thirdly, the Finance Bill is coming rapidly down the track and I should have thought that that would give plenty of opportunity for debate on those matters.

Mr. Simon Coombs: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a number of Members on both sides of the House are grateful to him for arranging a debate on tourism on 19 March? Is he further aware that in that debate the Under-Secretary of State for National Heritage said that he would welcome a debate on that subject once a year rather than every five years as has been the case up until now? Can my right hon. Friend find it in his heart to facilitate that in future?

Mr. Newton: One of the things that one becomes aware of in this job is that gratitude for what one has already done rapidly translates into a demand for yet more, but I will bear that request in mind.

Mr. Donald Anderson: As the Leader of the House will know, yesterday their Lordships endorsed the European Court of Justice judgment that the Shops Act 1950 was and remains valid. Will the right hon. Gentleman arrange a debate on the Attorney-General's future action, to determine whether the Attorney-General will now assist local authorities to enforce the 1950 Act or whether he will fold his arms, do nothing and allow massive law-breaking to continue for the next 12 months?

Mr. Newton: I acknowledge the position following the judgment in another place, but the situation in respect of enforcing the 1950 Act remains the same. If a local authority has evidence that the law is being broken, it must consider whether to issue a summons or to seek an injunction. It is neither for me nor for my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General to tell a local authority the action to take in a particular case.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: Should enforcement of the no-fly zone over Bosnia announced this afternoon not have the desired effect, will my right hon. Friend arrange a change in the business of the House in the week when it returns after Easter so that it may debate that extremely important and serious matter?

Mr. Newton: It would be wrong for me to speculate on hypothetical questions, but in considering business after Easter the Government will clearly bear in mind developments on that or any other front during the recess.

Mr. Nick Raynsford: May I draw to the attention of the Leader of the House early-day motion 1563 on affordable housing, signed by 98 right hon. and hon. Members of all parties?
[That this House believes that social housing must be affordable by people on low incomes and views with concern the Government's stated objectives to reduce Housing

Association Grant levels to 55 per cent. by 1995; notes that the ability of housing associations to deliver affordable housing could be seriously eroded and fears that a significant proportion of housing association tenants in work will have to pay more than 40 per cent. of their net disposable income in rent and that there will be a growing dependence on housing benefit; commends the NFHA's initiative in launching the Affordable Housing Campaign; and calls upon the Government to make every effort to ensure that the principle of affordable rented housing for those in housing need is upheld.]
Although that subject is due to be discussed tonight, the debate is unlikely to be reached at a reasonable or even an unreasonable time—or even by breakfast time tomorrow. Will the right hon. Gentleman therefore arrange a debate as soon as possible after the recess on that vitally important issue, which is of real concern due to steep rises in rents and the affordability problems suffered by thousands of tenants throughout the country?

Mr. Newton: I know that the hon. Gentleman, who is an assiduous Member of Parliament, will be in the Chamber in the hope that his debate is reached so that he can develop his points at greater length. For my part, I can only say that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has not taken any decisions on grant rates beyond next year and will not do so until proper assessments have been made of the likely impact on rents and the ability to attract private finance.

Mr. Peter Luff: Given the imminence of local government elections, will my right hon. Friend confirm that the welcome debate on local government issues the Friday after the House returns will enable right hon. and hon. Members to compare and contrast the efficiency and plain dealing of Conservative councils with the inefficiency and corruption of many Labour authorities?

Mr. Newton: There must be a good chance of that, but what is in order will depend on the view of the occupant of the Chair.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: If the Leader of the House will not tell the Secretary of State for Social Security to come to the House to answer on the question of the £4,000 that the taxpayer is having to foot to allow the Secretary of State to fly from his holiday cottage in France to return to Britain, will the Leader of the House ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to explain his conduct, because that right hon. Gentleman has been to the Secretary of State's holiday cottage and it cost the taxpayer £2,000 for him to fly back—when both right hon. Gentlemen could have flown back for £200 apiece? Why are the Government so arrogant and contemptuous of the British people? They tell those applying for a social security loan that they had better pay the money back, and quick, and poll tax payers are told the same, yet those two Ministers are charging the British taxpayer £6,000 for flying back from France. It is time that they paid that money back.

Madam Speaker: Order. Is the hon. Gentleman seeking a debate on that matter when the House returns?

Mr. Skinner: Yes, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: In that case, the hon. Gentleman might like to complete his question, recognising that these are business questions.

Mr. Newton: There are well established rules governing what is reasonable and appropriate in such matters. There must necessarily be some provision of that kind, unless it is to be supposed that Ministers are never to be allowed to leave the country.

Mr. David Tredinnick: Does my right hon. Friend agree, on the day the council tax is introduced, that it would be appropriate to debate soon regional variations in the charges set? Is my right hon. Friend aware that not only are Wandsworth and Westminster setting low charges but the flagship Hinckley and Bosworth borough council has set the lowest rate in the whole of the midlands? Should not such points be on record and debated?—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] My hon. Friends make their point adequately. They are saying that they want to debate that issue.

Mr. Newton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding the House—and, I hope, the country—of a very important point. If I remember rightly what my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) said during Prime Minister's Question Time, however, I sense that there may be a certain amount of disagreement in the midlands about which area has the lowest charge.

Mr. Max Madden: May I press the Leader of the House for an early debate on foreign affairs? Such a debate would allow the Foreign Secretary to report on, among other things, what success he has had in persuading the Indian Government to allow Amnesty International freely to investigate human rights violations in India. The matter has been made more important by the murder on 3 March of Mrs. Hamida Mattoo, who was gunned down by Indian security forces in Indian-occupied Kashmir, apparently for no other reason than that she was the sister of Dr. Mehraj Mattoo, the British-based Kashmiri human rights campaigner. Will the Leader of the House urge the Foreign Secretary to make urgent inquiries into the murder, and to report to the House?

Mr. Newton: I shall certainly ensure that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is aware of the case, and of the wider point that the hon. Gentleman has made. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the Foreign Secretary will be here to answer questions on the day of our return from the recess, although I accept that that will not constitute a debate.

Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood): Debate on the European Communities (Amendment) Bill will take up no less than half the House's time during the week of our return from the recess. Would it not show a much better sense of priorities, which would be well understood in the country as a whole, if the House debated either the armed forces or the Royal Navy on the motion to approve the defence estimates? We have not debated defence estimates in relation to the armed forces since October 1991, and we have not debated the Royal Navy in that context since June 1991. Her Majesty's forces are currently operational in the Adriatic, Bosnia and Croatia, and the House needs to debate the strategic context in which they are carrying out their duties.

Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend raised a similar point with me a week or two ago. I cannot add to what I told him then. I said that I would attempt to find time for a debate on at least some of the matters in which he is interested, but I cannot yet give definite dates. I should point out that we are not spending half the week of our return on the European Communities (Amendment) Bill—it is really one third of the week, as one third of our time will be spent happily in Adjournment.

Mr. Peter Hain: Will the Leader of the House be able to make an early statement on the procedure to be used during debate on the Finance Bill in regard to voting on the measure giving extra tax relief to Lloyd's names? It should be borne in mind that nearly 50 Conservative Members, including three Cabinet Ministers, are Lloyd's names. Would it not be right for the right hon. Gentleman to exclude those Members from voting on a measure which could benefit them personally?

Mr. Newton: Such questions are certainly not for the Leader of the House to decide at the Dispatch Box, and I do not intend to try.

Mr. Paul Flynn: May we have a debate immediately after Easter on the most important and dangerous threat with which the world is now faced—the proliferation of nuclear weapons in the 30 unstable small states which already possess ballistic missiles? There is clear evidence that the Prime Minister is changing his view of the British position on testing nuclear weapons and is coming round to the idea of a test ban. May we have a debate, so that the Prime Minister can tell the House that Britain is to stop being one of the only two countries in the world—the other is China—which continue to test nuclear weapons?

Mr. Newton: I cannot promise a debate on those matters, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will seek to catch the Speaker's eye at some stage during Prime Minister's questions and attempt to put that point to my right hon. Friend directly.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: Will the right hon. Gentleman impress on his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security the urgent need for an early statement—if possible, during the first week after the recess—about the Government's response to the judgment made earlier this week by the European Court of Justice in case C-328/91, in which the court found against the Department of Social Security in respect of equal treatment in the payment of invalidity benefit? Many thousands of women aged 60 or more suffered very badly when they lost invalidity benefit, or had it reduced. Many are sick or disabled. The Government should act honourably by implementing the court's decision and paying those women the original amount.

Mr. Newton: I shall certainly draw that request to the attention of my right hon. Friend. The hon. Gentleman will know—certainly I do from my experience—that in recent years the Government have put a great deal of effort into improving equality of treatment under the benefits system generally.

Valleys Initiative

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. David Hunt): With permission, I should like to make a statement about the valleys initiative.
Yesterday, the programme for the valleys—announced by my predecessor, Lord Walker, five years ago—came to an end. The achievements are extensive. First, over 7,000 homes have been improved through enveloping and repair schemes. Secondly, over 2,000 acres of derelict land have been cleared by the Welsh Development Agency, in the largest land clearance programme undertaken anywhere in Europe. Thirdly, nearly £700 million of additional private sector investment has been secured, involving 24,000 jobs. Fourthly, 2·6 million sq ft of new industrial floor space have been created. Fifthly, the most successful of all the national garden festivals was held at Ebbw Vale and another unique festival—Valleys Live '92—promoted, which celebrated the refurbishment of many arts centres under the programme.
Today I am pleased to announce not only that the programme will indeed continue until 1998, but that, over the five-year period, total public expenditure under the programme for the valleys is expected to be well over £1,000 million. Urban and economic expenditure, for instance, is currently running at £175 million, and will continue at that rate through 1993–94.
The most important development over the last five years has, I believe, been the strengthening of local initiative. Many valley communities are now able to work up their own strategies for development and to put together partnerships to implement them.
I want today's launch of the new programme to mark a distinct change in style. The emphasis must shift away from centralised initiatives towards a dynamic and evolving programme, based on local strategies, that responds to the needs and opportunities of local communities and increasingly is driven by local people. I shall therefore be using the full range of the Welsh Office's responsibilities, together with the local authorities and the Welsh Development Agency, to empower local partnerships to implement local strategies.
Thanks to the programme for the valleys, there is now tremendous co-ordination of all the public money being spent in the area. I believe that there is, truly, a vision for the valleys. That vision is promoted by generous sums of taxpayers' money.
The new programme for the valleys will be founded upon a clear set of aims. Every project under the programme will be evaluated on the basis of the following six aims: to create long-term, sustainable employment of improved quality; to make that employment accessible to all the people of the valleys through education, training and transport facilities; to improve the quality of the environment and to maintain it, both as an attraction to business and tourism and, of course, for the benefit of the people of the valleys; to target national health resources more effectively and to establish a health innovation zone for the valleys; to improve the quality and variety of housing; and to encourage local people to take the lead, in partnership with the Welsh Office, the Welsh Development Agency, local councils and the commercial and voluntary sectors.
I believe that there is now widespread agreement that the key to success will be strategies which tackle the local needs of the people of the valleys and the formation of positive partnerships to implement these strategies. That is how we shall strengthen the sense of community and shared values which has always typified the Welsh valleys.
The WDA's urban development business plan for the coming year will build on the partnership approach through further joint activities with local councils and the private sector. Towns where early urban development investment is planned include Pontardawe, Ammanford, Ystradgynlais, Aberdare, Merthyr Tydfil, Pontypridd, Porth, Tonypandy, Abertillery, Blackwood, Crumlin, Newbridge, Tredegar and Ebbw Vale.
Investment aimed at attracting employment to the valleys should now develop the concept of industrial villages. This is an exciting new idea, and I gladly pay tribute to its many enthusiastic advocates on the Opposition Benches. The WDA is giving increasing attention to supporting the growth of indigenous business in the valleys. Valleys communities must not be relegated to dormitory towns feeding the M4 or the coastal fringe. To help attract employment opportunities to communities, I will encourage local authorities to make full use of the simplified planning zone procedures.
Through a whole range of projects, this new programme will improve the quality of life throughout the valleys. Welsh Development International has established a dedicated team of executives to promote inward investment to the valleys. My Department is participating, with local councils, British Rail and the Cardiff Bay Development Corporation, in a joint study of the potential for improved links to Cardiff bay. The road network within the valleys will continue to be improved. Major trunk road improvements are planned for the A470 and the A465, and a bypass for Tredegar will start in 1993–94.
New funding arrangements for higher education have today extended eligibility for research funding to the university of Glamorgan. Part of the programme of grants to assist the Welsh language will be specifically targeted at two valleys areas—the Gwendraeth valley and the Taff Ely valley. Local communities will be encouraged to play a more active role through a further round of the very successful community revival strategy. I shall be inviting new bids in the spring and selecting successful schemes in the autumn. Over the next five years, I plan to invest some £9·25 million in new community hospitals at Ebbw Vale and Torfaen. In 1993–4, local councils associated with the valleys programme will have available to them over £123 million by way of support for their housing programmes. On top of that, Housing for Wales will generate investment of over £40 million to provide new social housing in the valleys next year.
At the site of the extremely successful Ebbw Vale national garden festival, the first new urban village in Wales will be developed. The environment will continue to be improved through the WDA's land reclamation work in the valleys. The WDA is on course to clear all important dereliction in the valleys in three years. The valleys forest initiative will be strengthened. Tourism and leisure will be encouraged under the programme. New community arts facilities will build on the success of Valleys Live. An outdoor activities initiative will be a major new Sports Council for Wales Enterprise for the valleys in the coming


financial year. Initially, this will provide increased opportunities for outdoor pursuit activities for children living in the northern valleys area, around Merthyr Tydfil.
The Sports Council for Wales is also working on detailed plans for the development of centres of excellence, which would cover six sports in each of the proposed new unitary authorities. There could therefore, in time, be 36 centres of excellence in place in the valleys.
In the course of this year, the programme will be incorporated into the wider strategy for industrial south Wales, which is currently under development as a framework for the EC's structural funds from 1994 onwards. I will actively encourage and support the take-up of European funds in the valleys. I am determined to see the valleys take a prominent place in Europe. The WDA will be developing its links with Europe, and I expect further links to be made between local strategies in the valleys and corresponding areas elsewhere in the European Community.
This new, five-year programme presents a fresh challenge, opens up new opportunities, and sets a new direction for economic and social regeneration. I particularly welcome the creation of a Valleys Forum, driven by local people, to give a unified voice to all the organisations which are active in the valleys. As it evolves, this body could play a vital role in the future of the valleys, and I look forward to meeting the forum at the earliest opportunity.
This programme should mark the beginning of a new age in the south Wales valleys—an age of ambitions realised, of growing assertiveness and prosperity, and of a generation looking forward to better health and economic prospects than any generation before.

Mr. Paul Murphy: Although I acknowledge that the valleys programme came to an end—I think—yesterday, the timing of this statement could have been better. Of course all hon. Members welcome any new resources for our valleys, just as we have welcomed the various initiatives over the past few years, but any factory building programme, capital schemes or plans for redevelopment in south Wales must have the co-operation of all political parties in the Principality.
Does the Secretary of State accept that we shall need to examine his plans in great detail to ascertain how much of the money is new money and how much is essentially repackaging of plans already in existence? The hospitals in Ebbw Vale and Torfaen, the plans for the redevelopment of some towns and villages in the valleys and the plans for transport development are already very much on the cards in any event. The plans that the Secretary of State has announced are in no way new plans.
We fear that the Secretary of State's proposals do not go far enough; nor do they tackle the fundamental, underlying problems of the valleys. I know that he understands the enormous unemployment problems in our valley towns, which cost the taxpayer almost £300 million a year and whole generations of young people any hope for the future. Whatever reductions in the jobless he might point to, the south Wales valleys still rank as some of the worst black spots in the country.
Does he remember that his predecessor, now Lord Walker, told the House on 14 June 1988:

The levels of Government aid envisaged over the next three years would on past experience create over £1 billion of private investment and 25,000 to 30,000 additional jobs."—[Official Report, 14 June 1988; Vol. 135, c. 170.]
They have not come, and unemployment has risen during the valleys programme by almost 12 per cent. Does he accept that he has given the House no specific commitment to create jobs, and no real figures? Is he not aware that the valleys have suffered a double blow not only in the loss of our traditional coal and steel jobs but in the decline of the manufacturing and engineering jobs which were meant to replace them?
We welcome the Secretary of State's adoption of our proposals for one-stop shops for local enterpreneurs and industrial villages. A fortnight ago, my hon. Friends the Members for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) and for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) and I met Bruce Millan in Brussels—I understand that the Secretary of State is to do the same—to discuss the need for special European funds for the south Wales valleys. Does the Secretary of State agree that the valleys need a unique type of grant, and that any loss of assisted area status in south Wales generally would have a most serious and detrimental effect on the economy of the south Wales valleys?
Above all, does he realise that the regeneration of the south Wales valleys must ultimately involve a partnership between the Government, properly funded agencies and councils? How can we have a valleys programme when the Welsh Development Agency is concentrating on property development and raising rents to levels beyond the reach of most valley people? How on earth can his initiative be meaningful when he has cut the resources to our valley local authorities? Far from reducing spending, can he not see that one of the best ways to revitalise our valley communities is to build houses by releasing the capital receipts in local authority coffers, repair roads and bridges in the valleys, clean up our towns and stop dereliction in our villages?
Will he acknowledge that the cuts in education and training which he has introduced in the past few weeks will negate any good that might come from this or any other initiative or programme?
Finally, does the Secretary of State not accept that without proper funding of the valley councils, without a recognition that the traditionally radical people of the valleys find the increasing use of government by quango scandalous, and without a long-term vision for our valleys that is both bold and imaginative, the announcement can be seen only as both superficial and cosmetic?

Mr. Hunt: That is the first time that I have ever heard £1,000 million called "cosmetic". That description merely shows how economically illiterate the Labour party is.
The first thing that the hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) said was that the timing of the statement could have been better. I do not know what he means by that. Yesterday the old programme came to an end and today the new programme starts. What better timing could there be than that? I should have thought that he should welcome the statement rather than disparaging it.
The hon. Gentleman's next question was how much new money there was, as if Labour Members and I should take a fleet of lorries down to the Royal Mint in Llantrisant and load them up with something called new money. What we are talking about is nothing so silly. We are talking about £1,000 million in resources over the next five years, and most of the details have not yet been


announced. Not only shall I ensure that resources are directed through existing programmes, but, as I have already said, I have several new programmes which I believe will provide a new focus and better targeting.
The hon. Gentleman's next point was that there were no new plans in the statement. Of course, there is a whole range of new plans. The hon. Gentleman cannot have it one way and then claim tribute the other way. He said that I needed the co-operation of all the political parties to achieve a proper partnership in the valleys, and I accept that. That is why I have accepted two ideas as part of the plans that I have announced—the concept of industrial villages and the concept of the one-stop shop. I paid tribute to the Labour party in that connection, and I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman might have acknowledged that.

Mr. Murphy: I did.

Mr. Hunt: Yes, but the hon. Gentleman might have acknowledged it rather than saying that there were no new plans. Those are new plans, and we are talking about a new programme.
In relation to European Community funding, I saw the Commissioner here in the same week in which the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues were travelling off to Brussels. Had the Opposition checked, they would have found out that he was giving evidence to one of the Select Committees of the House. I saw the Commissioner here just a few hours before Opposition Members went over to Brussels to see him, and I said exactly the same. I told him that I wanted to find a way within European funds of maximising receipts for the valleys by treating them as a special case. The Commissioner and I agreed to have exploratory discussions to ensure that that can happen.
The hon. Member for Torfaen went on to disparage what he called government by quango, and to call the Welsh Development Agency—in his terminology, I suppose that that is our premier quango—merely a property agency collecting high rents. That is disgraceful. Many people who work in the Welsh Development Agency are totally dedicated to the full range of programmes, and they will resent the hon. Gentleman's attempt to disparage the agency. In the coming financial year, the WDA. will have a record budget in cash terms and in real terms—more than £170 million. I believe that that is a good investment.
Finally, the hon. Gentleman asked me where the jobs were. He cannot have listened. I said that one of the achievements of the programme has been nearly £700 million in additional private sector investment secured, involving 24,000 jobs. Whereas unemployment in many parts of the world, including, sadly, the United Kingdom as a whole, has risen since the programme for the valleys was launched by Lord Walker five years ago—in the United Kingdom it has risen by 30 per cent., and it has risen in the United States, in France, in Canada, in Australia and in many other countries—in the valleys unemployment has fallen. Unemployment in the valleys is now half a percentage point lower than when the programme started. That means that there are now 10,500 more people in work in the valleys than there would have been if unemployment there had followed the national trend. That is a great tribute to my predecessor, Lord Walker.

Mr. Jonathan Evans: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, unlike the negative attitude from the Opposition Benches, his statement will be warmly welcomed within the Ystradgynlais valley community that I represent in the House? That community has enthusiastically taken on board the valleys initiative and the successes are there to be seen. May I inform my right hon. Friend that his initiative for community involvement will be welcomed in Ystradgynlais where the Ystradgynlais 2000 project, a truly community-based project, has had Welsh Office support and endorsement, and has also recently had an environmental Wales award? In regard to his discussions with the European Commissioner, can my right hon. Friend confirm that European projects will be additional to the announcement that he has made today?

Hon. Members: Yes or no?

Mr. Hunt: I say yes to that. European-funded programmes in the valleys will be truly additional. I shall work to maximise the valleys' share of the available resources.
On my hon. Friend's first point, I recognise that he has always strongly represented the claims of Ystradgynlais. The community revival strategy, which is a new programme, has worked exceedingly well, and I want to see it continue.

Mr. Neil Kinnock: Can the Secretary of State confirm that he has just said that any European funds will be in addition to those that he announced in the statement? If they are, there will be a warm welcome, but we should like detail on that.
When I saw that there was to be a statement today, I, together with many other hon. Members, hoped for an announcement of new and effective changes. I record with regret the fact that, in so many respects, we got a reannouncement of other reannouncements.
The statement means that phase 2 of the valleys initiative is, like its predecessor, likely to be in many respects a cosmetic package that will not reverse the downward trend of Government support for regions, cuts in training and the reductions in real terms for local authorities serving the valleys and other parts of Wales.
Does the Secretary of State recall that, just this week, we heard that counties covering the valleys, like others in Wales, are to lose millions from their budgets in the current financial year for social services and education? That must contradict the purpose which he said he had of trying to rejuvenate and reinvigorate the valley communities.
If the Secretary of State wants to take tangible initiatives, may I ask him yet again to allow councils in the valleys to spend their own money on house building and house improvement to generate real jobs and regenerate communities? Will he reverse training cuts in vocational training for unemployed people and people in jobs, to give them the real means to find work for themselves in their valley communities? Without those developments, the statement will deserve the title offered by my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) of yet another cosmetic package.

Mr. Hunt: The right hon. Gentleman lives in a different world. [HON. MEMBERS: "In Ealing."] I do not know where Ealing is, but he lives in a different world. Many of the things he said are untrue. On the first point, on


additionality, I have made it clear that European funds coming to Wales are genuinely additional. If the right hon. Gentleman referred to the departmental report for next year, he would see that I have allocated £70 million to meet the Welsh Office share of those genuinely additonal funds.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me to allow councils to use their receipts. As he knows, the autumn statement gave a special dispensation whereby receipts realised this year since the autumn statement can be utilised. His comment about social service cuts is made on a day when a new innovative programme called care in the community is coming in. One county council which I believe has done most to implement the new strategy is Mid Glamorgan county council. He would have done better to pay tribute to that, because the strategic framework document that Mid Glamorgan county council has produced is a model of what can be achieved. It has been produced in conjunction not only with voluntary organisations but with the health authority and the Family Health Services Authority. It is about time that the right hon. Gentleman started to pay tribute to the work of local authorities instead of disparaging the partnership.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. I am now seeking brisk exchanges, and questions and answers. I must safeguard the other business of the House, which concerns private Members.

Mr. Walter Sweeney: I do not live in the valleys or represent any part of them, but does my right hon. Friend agree that the generous help that he has announced today in the five-year programme will provide benefit to the whole of Wales, will encourage Wales as a community, will foster the language, will foster the sense of community, will generate increased interest in sport and will generally improve the life style of everyone in Wales?

Mr. Hunt: I agree with my hon. Friend. In years to come, the rest of Europe, which has already expressed great interest in the transformation that has taken place in the valleys, and the rest of the world will come to see the model of how to move from industrial dereliction to new, vibrant, growing communities. That model will be found in the valleys, where, thanks to the communities, the local people, the local authorities, the Welsh Development Agency, the Welsh Office and all the partners combining, it has been an enormous success. We used to have 214 coal mines in the valleys; we now have three. We have not looked back; we have looked forward to the future, and the rest of the world will pay tribute to the valleys for that.

Mr. Alex Carlile: While the continuation of the valleys initiative is welcome, does the Secretary of State agree that there is a need for a shift of emphasis to the provision of jobs for men with traditional skills and a good record of hard work who continue to face the loss of jobs in the old standard industries of Wales? Will he further agree that an appropriate way for some small part at least of the valleys initiative money to be spent would be on the restoration and preservation of some of the fine miners' institutes which have served Wales so well and which are such an important part of our architecture? [Interruption.]

Mr. Bob Cryer: He does not know what the Secretary of State is talking about.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: He did not hear the statement.

Mr. Carlile: Yes, I did.

Mr. Hunt: I do not wish to intervene in the private war on the Opposition Benches, but the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) is right. The Valleys Live arts festival, which has been a tremendous success, was based on the refurbishment of seven of those main cultural centres where the old cultural life of the valleys can be seen.
On the new programmes, the training and enterprise councils covering the valley areas will develop new initiatives on unemployment, such as opportunity shops, to give local people access to new training employment opportunities, and outreach projects to promote employment, enterprise and training.
I must pay tribute to the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands). We have learnt a great deal from some of the suggestions which he has made. I recognise the problem that the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery has mentioned.

Mr. Rod Richards: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his splendid announcement today is the icing on the cake for Wales on a day which has seen hospitals attain trust status, schools attain grant-maintained status, the introduction of care in the community and the replacement of the poll tax by the council tax? Is he as dismayed as I am that the shadow Opposition spokesman on Welsh affāirs chose today of all days to hobnob with his union bosses in the TUC?

Mr. Hunt: I was unaware of that; no reason had been given for the non-attendance of the shadow Secretary of State for Wales. If he is indeed meeting the TUC in Wales today, I hope that he is asking unions not to strike and not to cause the problems that will arise from the industrial action tomorrow. The sad fact is that Labour Members are still scared of Arthur Scargill and will not condemn the strike. I agree that today is a great day, when we are bringing power closer to the people through a whole range of new initiatives.

Mr. Ted Rowlands: Many good things are happening and will happen as a result of local partnerships, and we welcome the support and endorsement which the right hon. Gentleman gives them.
I was astonished by the omission from the statement of any new training initiative. The vast majority of our problems flow from the simple basic fact that, at present, more than 20 per cent of the men in our communities are out of work and another 20 per cent. are economically inactive—that is more than 40 per cent.—despite the five-year initiative of Lord Walker. Those are the facts of life in our communities. Like his predecessor, will the right hon. Gentleman at least announce a jobs target for this programme so that we can judge it by that success or failure?

Mr. Hunt: The hon. Gentleman is a senior member of the Labour party, and I hoped that he would take the opportunity to condemn tomorrow's industrial action. It


is a matter of great regret, and is putting many jobs at risk. It is appalling that Labour Members will not condemn the action.
I have mentioned training on several occasions, because I believe that resources for training are vital to ensure that the quality of life in the whole of the valleys area improves.

Mr. Peter Luff: In the face of the characteristically ungracious response of Labour Members to this welcome announcement today, can my right hon. Friend confirm that it is no exaggeration to say that the programme for the valleys has been one of the most successful initiatives ever taken by the Government in any region of the country? Will he join me in paying tribute to Lord Walker—my right hon. Friend's predecessor in the Welsh Office, and my predecessor in Worcester—for his energy, drive, vision and concern for the people of the valleys, which led him to set up the initiative in the first place?

Mr. Hunt: : I join my hon. Friend in warmly paying tribute to his predecessor, Lord Walker. We are now discussing an extension to a programme which was opposed at the outset by the Labour party but which is now recognised as one of the most innovative and imaginative programmes ever devised.
Other parts of Britain and Europe certainly agree with what we are saying. There has been an enormous amount of interest from elsewhere in Europe and the Community as well as other parts of central and eastern Europe in what has been achieved in Wales. For example, the Welsh Office has recently been invited to offer advice on the redevelopment of the Frankfurt an der Oder region of the former east Germany. That is an outstanding example of the way in which Wales is seen as the place from which it can be learned how to regenerate an economy and attract investment.

Mr. Donald Anderson: The Secretary of State will know that, with increasing mobility, there is a real interlinking of economic interests and employment between the valley communities and those communities which are immediately contiguous to the valleys. Will he give the House an undertaking that, in the review of assisted area status, those areas which are contiguous to the valleys, such as Swansea, Neath and Port Talbot, will not be downgraded?

Mr. Hunt: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are presently conducting a review of assisted areas. I am joined in that study by the President of the Board of Trade, and we shall be announcing our decisions as soon as possible. I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman was in the House for the whole of my statement.

Mr. Anderson: Yes, I was.

Mr. Hunt: He was. I remind the hon. Gentleman, whom I greatly respect, that I was focusing on the need not only to consider the whole infrastructure but to target jobs within the valleys themselves by means of the concept of industrial and urban villages, and so on. Let us ensure that we do not simply become dormitory areas for other centres of population. Let us ensure that we strengthen our local communities in the best possible way.

Mr. Alan W. Williams: I am sure that the Secretary of State will agree that the Welsh Development Agency has done some good work over the years in

sustaining employment in the valleys, and has a vital role to play in this programme. Can he give some indication of the future funding of the agency? It is selling off property at an alarming rate, which can be sustained for only one or two years at the rate of £80 million a year. Its grant in aid has been cut from £93 million last year to under £60 million this year. What will happen after that? Is it the plan that the agency will have to apply for European money? If that is the case, is not that money earmarked for local authorities and meant to be additional to existing moneys?

Mr. Skinner: He is the Wizard of Oz.

Mr. Williams: Can the Secretary of State tell us something about the funding of the Welsh Development Agency for 1995–96 in this programme?

Mr. Hunt: I heard the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) call me the Wizard of Oz. I would simply say that he is the tin man.
I thank the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) for his tribute to the Welsh Development Agency.

Mr. Skinner: There is a scarecrow behind you.

Mr. Hunt: I do not want to carry this forward any further. I thank the hon. Member for Carmarthen for his tribute to the Welsh Development Agency, which was in stark contrast to the words of the hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy).
In 1993–94, there will be an increase in resources for the agency's urban development programme of 30 per cent. to £13 million in the valleys next year, compared with about £10 million this year. The agency will also be spending nearly £10 million on property development in the valleys. Major joint ventures are under way, for example, in Merthyr Tydfil, Tredegar and the Amman and Gwendraeth valleys.

Mr. Bob Dunn: I congratulate the Secretary of State on undertaking and carrying through one of the most successful initiatives ever launched. What lessons does he think can be drawn from the valleys for the rest of the United Kingdom and Europe?

Mr. Hunt: I welcome what my hon. Friend says. The greatest lesson that we can learn from the programme for the valleys is the way in which all partners—there are many key partners including the Welsh Office, the Welsh Development Agency, local authorities, local voluntary organisations, training and enterprise councils, health authorities, all the other agencies and the people—have decided to come together to make the programme successful. That partnership is a demonstration to other parts of the United Kingdom and Europe which highlights what we have been able to achieve in the valleys in Wales.

Mr. Peter Hain: I welcome the Secretary of State's determination to ensure that valley villages are not relegated to dormitory areas, and his promotion of the idea of industrial villages, which was first developed at the Neath valley conference last year. I point out that he has not repeated any target for jobs of the sort which his predecessor set of 25,000 to 30,000 new jobs over the past five years—a target which was not achieved. There is a certain shiftiness about the claim that unemployment has fallen because what has happened is that full-time,


relatively well paid jobs have been replaced by part-time, badly paid jobs, and adult male unemployment has increased by more than 11 per cent.
The Secretary of State has announced a cut in funding over the next five years in real terms: £1 billion in real terms over the next five years is less than £800 million which was the cost of the past five years. Is he not indulging in a certain sleight of hand and public relations gimmickry?

Mr. Hunt: The hon. Member is not comparing like with like. Rather than go into great detail on the figures, let me assure him that the reason why I announced a figure of well over £1 billion is that I wanted to get away from the sterile arguments about funding and resources and get on with the job of targeting the resources in the most effective way.
As for industrial villages, I know that several Labour Members have urged me not to pay too much tribute to the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), but I disregard all that advice, because his idea has been an excellent one and I am happy to embrace it. I want to build on the successful local strategies of the local authorities and the Welsh Development Agency to ensure that there is close involvement with the training and enterprise councils and others.
The key is to ensure that the full range of support is available to allow local business to grow successfully. We also need to target specific sectors of the market where there is potential—for example, by equipping local industry to supply inward investors through the Source Wales initiative, which holds tremendous prospects for all those involved in the valleys.

Mr. Mark Wolfson: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement today for two reasons. First, it demonstrates continuity in the Government's policy by moving from phase 1 to phase 2 of the initiative. Secondly, it supplies an excellent example of where the Government are prepared to put investment into joint ventures with the many others whom he mentioned. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it should be an encouragement to people in coalfield communities and elsewhere, and an example of what can be done?

Mr. Hunt: We have indeed demonstrated that there is life after coal. The valleys have performed extremely well over many years in supplying much-needed coal for the economy. Now, as the economy changes, the valleys have accepted the challenge of change. They have done so in a marvellous way, to a large extent in response to the extremely good initiative of my predecessor, Lord Walker. It has been an example to everyone. Some Opposition Members shout across the Chamber from time to time, but I know that in private they acknowledge that the programme for the valleys has been a remarkable success.

Mr. Paul Flynn: Does the Secretary of State agree that his principal purpose today has been to quarry away at the adjective mine and claim the mantle of his predecessor as Wales' principal but most vacuous rant boy? Does he agree that what he has offered today over five years is a tenth of the money that his Government lost in a single day on Black Wednesday? Why does not he leave aside the discredited figures on employment and

unemployment and look to every other indicator of poverty in Wales such as personal income per head, family income and low wages? He would find that, in relative and real terms, Wales had lost and is still losing. The valleys of Wales are still the capital of lowest wages and highest exploitation of our workers.

Mr. Hunt: I am increasingly disenchanted with Opposition Members talking down Wales and the valleys. If they want to be misery merchants, they may, but I do not intend to join them.

Mr. Michael Fabricant (Mid-Staffordshire): Is my right hon. Friend aware that jobs in coal mining in the European Community have fallen from 1·86 million to 260,000? Should not the valleys initiative be a model for the rest of Europe? My right hon. Friend has already said that he is advising parts of Germany, but are there not other ways in which the model could be promoted in the European Community and indeed, the United States, where jobs in coal mining are also being lost?

Mr. Hunt: I completely agree. We are seeing the decline of coal mining as an industry throughout the world. In Wales, we demonstrate that there is a way, so long as people accept the challenge of change. I believe that, in five years, people will see a programme which over 10 years has transformed the dereliction of the past into vibrant, growing communities of the future.

Mr. Bob Cryer: I inquire of the Minister who produced the flatulent statement this afternoon whether the additionality rule has been abandoned for the valleys project. If that is the case, will the additionality rule, which has been applied rigidly throughout the rest of the United Kingdom, be abandoned, for example, in Yorkshire and other coalfield areas?

Mr. Hunt: I do not know why the hon. Gentleman referred to my statement as flatulent. I suppose it is because he is an expert on the matter. I speak for the whole of the United Kingdom when I demonstrate to the European Commission that European funds are genuinely additional. They enable programmes to take place in the valleys and elsewhere in the United Kingdom which would not take place without the support of the EC.

Mr. Alun Michael: Does the Secretary of State recognise that his comments were insulting when he expressed surprise at the idea that Welsh communities can have vision and purpose for their own future? Does he recognise that the Welsh communities have always had vision and purpose, and that they require a Secretary of State who places confidence in them and their elected representatives in pursuing that vision and purpose?
Will the right hon. Gentleman set aside the complacency which he showed earlier when he referred to unemployment as if it was disappearing? Does he recognise the devastation that unemployment causes to communities throughout Wales? Hope has been stolen from a whole generation of young people by the threat of unemployment. Will he tell us a simple target that he has set for providing training opportunities and real jobs for young people in those communities?

Mr. Hunt: Again, I am pretty depressed when I hear Opposition Members talk the area down and talk about "a


whole generation" losing hope. I hope that he recognises that, since 1979, the Conservative Government have picked up the misery which the Labour party left by closing coal mines. We inherited a country in which slag heaps had not been removed and mining communities were dispirited because new jobs had not been provided. We breathed new life into Wales and the valleys. It is about time that Opposition Members began to recognise that.

Points of Order

Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I entirely accepted your suggestion this afternoon that my tardy arrival at business questions meant that I had missed the statement and, therefore, would not be called. I accepted that without equivocation, as you know. However, it caused me concern when the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile), who speaks for the Liberal party, arrived halfway through the Welsh statement and was called. I hope that there is no discrimination between tinpot members of the Liberal party who reckon to be Front-Bench spokesmen and other Back Benchers. The same rules should apply to everyone.

Mr. Alex Carlile: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Do you accept that the reason why I was a little late for the statement was that you took the sensible decision not to call the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), which meant that business questions lasted for considerably less time than I had anticipated?

Madam Speaker: Perhaps I might respond to the original point of order. I say seriously to the House that it is not my intention to call Members to question a statement when they have not heard that statement. I think that I have the support of the House on that, including the support of the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer).
It is true that the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) was one minute late for the statement. He was kind enough to send his Whip post haste to my Chair to explain why he was late. I will not repeat that explanation to the House.

BILL PRESENTED

NON-DOMESTIC RATING (No. 2)

Mr. Secretary Howard, supported by Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Heseltine, Mr. Secretary Hunt, Mr. John Redwood and Mr. Robin Squire, presented a Bill to make further provision with respect to non-domestic rating for the period beginning with 1st April 1993 and ending with 31st March 1995; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 176.]

Orders of the Day — Adjournment (Easter)

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That this House, at its rising tomorrow, do adjourn until Wednesday 14th April and, at its rising on Friday 30th April, do adjourn until Tuesday 4th May.—[Mr. Wood.]

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: The point of an Adjournment debate is to give right hon. and hon. Members the opportunity to seek redress of grievance before the House adjourns. That is the purpose of my speech. When I made arrangements to speak in the debate I did so on the assumption that the debate would immediately follow business questions. I did not anticipate that there would be two lengthy statements. I have an engagement later this evening so, if the length of the debate is such that I cannot be present for the reply, I apologise to both the Chair and the Leader of the House. As I intend to raise personal cases, it was my wish to hear the response.
The redress of grievance is one of the principal roles of the House. Seeking redress of grievance is one of the principal roles of a Member of Parliament. My great worry is that, because ministerial responsibility is being hived away to agencies not accountable to the House, I am unable to obtain redress on several extremely serious issues that relate to my constituents. Ministers do not reply to my letters. The agencies to which they refer me do not reply to my letters. When Ministers do not reply and I table questions seeking a reply, Ministers do not answer the questions within a reasonable period. When Ministers do not reply to my letters for three months and I then write to the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister does not reply to my letters, other than to acknowledge them and say that he will reply later. All of this I regard as a deliberate destruction of the proper accountability of Ministers to this House of Commons.
I want to describe the kind of issues relating to ordinary people seeking to live decent orderly lives which Ministers in this Government appear simply not to care about, because they will not respond.
For example, there is a Mrs. A—I will in no case give the full name of the person concerned, although I will supply it if necessary to the Leader of the House, together with the address—of Longsight, who made an application for mobility allowance in April 1992. Her papers were lost by the relevant agency. I have written repeatedly to the Secretary of State for Social Security about that case. I wrote to him on 14 December 1992; he did not reply to that letter. I wrote to him on 25 February 1993; he did not reply to that letter, written now more than five weeks ago. Mrs. A's mobility allowance application, which has now been unsolved for a year, remains unsettled.
Let us take the case of Mrs. J of Fallowfield in my constituency. She made a claim for disability living allowance. The Benefits Agency lost her claim. I have been in repeated correspondence with the Secretary of State for Social Security about that claim. I wrote to him on 20 January, 25 February and 26 March. He has replied to none of my letters about the claim, which has been outstanding for many months.
Let me refer to a claim by Mr. W of Levenshulme, which appeared to relate to unemployment benefit. I wrote

to the Secretary of State for Employment in November of last year about this case. The Department of Employment passed it to the Department of Social Security. A junior Minister in the Department of Social Security forwarded it to an agency. We now have a situation in which I have written three times to the Secretary of State for Social Security—on 18 January, 19 February and now again. I have received no reply to any of my letters about a case which has been going on since November of last year and which is unsolved.
Then we have the case of Miss H of Levenshulme in my constituency. There again, she applied for disability living allowance last November. When the Benefits Agency received her application they sent her a notification, which they admit was sent to the wrong address. I wrote to the Secretary of State about it on 22 January, again on 25 February and again on 26 March. I have had replies from the Secretary of State to none of my letters.
Let us take the case of Mr. T of Gorton relating to his wife. She made an application for maternity payment in July of last year. A mess has been made of her application and it has still not been sorted out nine months later. I wrote to the Secretary of State on 25 January, 25 February and 26 March. The Secretary of State has replied to none of my letters.
Then there is the case of Mr. G of Gorton. In this case, there were two applications. There was an application for attendance allowance in August 1991. This was converted by the Department into an application for disability living allowance. That claim, 20 months later, is not yet settled. An application for mobility allowance was made in February 1992–14 months ago. There was a delay in passing on the claim. I wrote to the Secretary of State. I wrote to the Prime Minister on 9 March; more than three weeks later, all I have had from the Prime Minister is an acknowledgement.
Appalling mistakes have been acknowledged by the Benefits Agency with regard to this claim. It admitted, with regard to the claim for attendance allowance, that
due to a clerical error
a decision made in May 1992 was not notified to the person concerned until August 1992.
In the case of the second claim, for mobility allowance, the lady concerned was examined by a doctor in March 1992, but the claim was not passed on to the agency until February 1993–11 months between the two processes—and, as a result, my constituent was without remedy for that period.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: Is it not true that in some of the tragic cases so familiar to hon. Members—certainly I get told about exactly similar situations—there are occasions when, tragically, the individual concerned dies before the matter is resolved, causing considerable heartache to the family and not helping the person who should have been getting the assistance?

Mr. Kaufman: I agree with my hon. Friend. I do not believe that it enters into the minds of the Ministers responsible—I shall deal in a moment with cases relating to the Secretary of State for Health—that human beings are involved in this. The letter arrives on the Secretary of State's desk, if it gets that far; it is then passed on to an agency and, although I repeatedly write to the Secretary of State and describe some of the physical suffering that is being endured, the Secretary of State does not appear to be able to empathise with a fellow human being less


fortunately placed than he or she, who is suffering, often in great pain and in the most humiliating circumstances. I shall describe such a case in a moment.
Let me take the case of Mr. M of Levenshulme. He applied for disability living allowance in November 1992. His application has not yet been decided. I wrote to the Secretary of State on 8 January, 21 January and 21 February. He has replied to none of my letters. I tabled a question asking him to reply to my letters; he has not replied to the question either.
I will cite a human case which I regard as, in its way,the saddest of those that I have described. It concerns a constituent of mine, Mr. B, of Rusholme in my constituency, and I will read to the House part of his letter. He says:
My daughter learned of the highlighted attached vacancies last weekend".
That was an advertisement by the Benefits Agency in the local press, which read:
The Benefits Agency anticipates a number of vacancies for Administrative Assistants in its District Offices at Wythenshawe and Rusholme …
We intend to make sure that there is equality of opportunity and fair treatment for all".
And it said:
Application forms can be' obtained from the local job centre. Completed forms should be received no later than 26.3.93".
My constituent told me that his daughter went to the Rusholme jobcentre on 22 March—that was four days before the expiry of the period for receipt of forms—
to obtain an application form as per the advert. She was told there were no forms left. When she asked where she could obtain one she was told she couldn't (`that's it').
When she told me this I couldn't believe it and went there myself. I was told the same thing. I telephoned the Benefits Agency and they confirmed that only a limited number of forms were printed. I do not know how they were disseminated. It seems grossly unfair for an employer to behave like this to the unemployed.
In my constituency, unemployment is 18 per cent. overall, and very much higher among young people. The letter continues:
For them to purport to intend to make sure that there is equality of opportunity and fair treatment for all' as an Equal Opportunity employer is a joke. The advert is misleading, untruthful and dishonest. It is depressing enough to be unemployed without the added demoralisation of being denied the right to apply for a job in accordance with the terms of its advertisement within its closing date.
That was a letter I received this week about the conduct of a Government Department. I have written to the Secretary of State about it, but I have not yet received a reply. I shall be extremely surprised if I get a reply and utterly astounded if I get a satisfactory one.
Let me draw attention to two outstanding cases relating to health matters. My constituent, Mrs. M of Fallowneld, had a kidney transplant which failed. As a result, she has to wear—and she came to see me with this—a 14 in wide permanent back wrapped around her. That is how she lives her life. She could be helped if she were given a disconnect ambulatory peritoneal dialysis device which should be available under the national health service. However, because of Government restriction of finance, there is a waiting list and she has to wait for it.
I wrote to the Secretary of State for Health saying that I would like her to meet my constituent so that she could see how she had to live. I do not know whether the Secretary of State for Health could begin to place herself

in the position of a woman who has to go around like that all her life and will continue having to do so unless the treatment is provided to her by the national health service.
Whenever I have written to the Secretary of State about this matter, she has simply passed my letters on to some agency and when the woman who is suffering in that way wrote to the Secretary of State, she never received a reply. The Secretary of State wrote to me saying that the letter had been lost. That is how the Secretary of State is earning her very large salary.
Let us take the case of Mr. H of Levenshulme who had a prostate operation that was unsuccessful. His consultant told him that it could be of benefit to him if he had a minor operation in which he would be fitted with an artificial urinary sphincter. I wrote to the consultant to find out whether such treatment would be of assistance to my constituent, and the consultant replied in a long letter explaining the situation. He wrote:
There … is no physical contra-indication to such a device being used in Mr. H's case, but yet again I am afraid we find ourselves embroiled in the fiscal issues. With cost improvement programmes and other financial restrictions, together with no prosthetics budget, I simply do not have the money to be able to fund the £3,000 or so that would be necessary for this device … I quite understand that he has no means to be able to purchase this prosthesis and I do not really think that it is reasonable that he should be expected to do so … I would be extremely grateful for any help that you might be able to give me which would be beneficial to your constituent.
The consultant urologist wrote that such a device could help my constituent, that he would like to fit it, but he did not have the money for it and he asked me whether I could help get the money for it.
I have been in constant correspondence with the Secretary of State for Health since then. She simply passes my letters on to the regional health authority. The last time I wrote to her was on 11 March, which is getting on for a month ago. She has not replied to my letters. I wonder whether she can began to imagine the life that my constituent is living, in pain, discomfort and great inconvenience due to the way that she is failing to administer a satisfactory national health service. She is failing even to respond to the letters that I have sent her about my constituent.
I have chosen just a handful of letters from a file of 400 current cases. I could send the Leader of the House many more. They all relate to two aspects: first, human cases are no longer being dealt with by Ministers but are being shuffled off to agencies in buck passing and, secondly, that the agencies themselves do not and need not respond, because they are completely unaccountable to me or to the House. The Leader of the House is shaking his head. If they are accountable, why do they not reply to my letters and get something done, as my constituents have been suffering for many months?
I say again what I have said on several occasions and will continue saying. I will not relent until something is done about it. The way in which the Government are hiving off human concerns to agencies which have no obligation to reply, even to Members of Parliament, is a destruction of democracy through the destruction of accountability of Ministers to the House. That is what Ministers are for. Ministers are there not only to consider high policy such as Bosnia but to examine cases involving individual human beings. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter) does not believe that, he is not fit to represent his constituents.
Every individual citizen of our democracy has a right to have his or her grievance considered by a Minister. These agencies do not respond satisfactorily; they do not deal with cases sufficiently. As I have said before, in my view, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency should be dismissed. If Ministers do not do their job properly, they should be dismissed, too.

Sir Fergus Montgomery: I usually find the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) an agreeable companion when I travel north with him—except when he talks politics, so we do not talk politics very often. He was a Minister during the last Labour Government. That was a long time ago and one has to have a good memory to remember those days. When we wrote then as Members of Parliament to him as a Minister, he could not possibly have seen every letter that was sent to him.

Mr. Kaufman: The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery) should know that when I was appointed to the Department, of the Environment in 1974, the first thing I said to my officials was that I wanted to see every letter and that no letter could be sent until a draft had been put before me and I had either approved or changed the letter. I replied to every Member of Parliament of whatever party who wrote to me. The hon. Gentleman, who is an agreeable companion when he is not talking rubbish, is wrong. I had that responsibility, although it was long ago, and during my five years in Government I replied on individual cases to every Member of Parliament who wrote to me.

Sir Fergus Montgomery: Of course, the right hon. Gentleman used his usual charm when he said that I was talking rubbish. I maintain that it must be difficult for some Ministers, particularly those who receive an enormous amount of correspondence, to respond to every letter. I am sure that it is impossible for the Secretary of State for Health, which is an emotive issue, to read every letter she receives. The right hon. Gentleman was perhaps unfair to my right hon. Friend on that score.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): I do not want to interrupt my hon. Friend's flow but I had been about to intervene in the speech of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman)—not in an attempt to answer him, which would be improper, in the circumstances until I have an opportunity to speak, but because he courteously informed me that he might not be here when I speak—to place on record that I would be grateful if he would make sure that I have the identifying details of all the cases that he mentioned. I cannot comment on the cases off the cuff, but without that information I cannot get anything done about them.

Sir Fergus Montgomery: I make no apology at all for raising again what I regard as the unsatisfactory hospital provision in my constituency. Those who are regular attenders of this debate will be aware that this sad saga has been going on for years and years.
In June 1980, which was a long time ago, I had an Adjournment debate on the need for a new district

hospital. I was told then that a decision would be reached with all possible speed, but I heard nothing for a year. In June 1981, I went to see the then Minister and in October 1981 the scheme was accepted by the Department and the regional health authority. My constituents thought that at long last we were on our way and would have the district hospital that we had been promised for many years.
In April 1983, in a formal review of capital schemes, the regional health authority could not guarantee a place in the programme, and the previous acceptance of a start in 1987–88 was not confirmed. In October 1983 we were told that we were provisionally in the programme for the 1988 financial year and that the Treasury—this is the important thing—had approved the purchase of the site.
In September 1984 our hopes of a district hospital were dashed for ever. There was enormous anger and dismay in my constituency that something which we had been promised for so long had suddenly disappeared. But hope springs eternal, and we had fresh hope that, instead of getting a district hospital, we would at least get a community hospital in our area. This was confirmed by the regional health authority in May 1988 and a suitable site was earmarked. The community hospital was to comprise 24 beds and 24 day places for the elderly mentally infirm, 48 beds and 30 day places for the elderly, two 25 place mental illness day units, four out-patient clinic suites, two radiodiagnostic rooms, 10 investigation beds and one small pathology laboratory. Such a hospital would have filled a desperate need in my constituency because, as I am sure that most hon. Members will agree, the problem of an aging population is a very serious one.
I have no complaint against Trafford health authority because I think that it is as angry as I am. It even offered to fund 39 per cent. of the capital cost by means of disposable proceeds plus a large cash injection. I thought—and I am sure that it thought—that such a commitment would impress the regional health authority. How wrong can one get? As time has gone on, I have wondered more and more what we have to do to impress the regional health authority.
Last year our community hospital was included in a shortlist of six projects for consideration by the regional health authority, but in April 1992 we were told that our community hospital was not in the regional capital programme. What I want to know is why Trafford is given such a low priority by the regional health authority.

Mr. Barry Porter: It is due to my hon. Friend's representation.

Sir Fergus Montgomery: My hon. Friend could well be right. However, at the previous election my majority went up, for which I am very grateful.
Since 1980, we have been ranked bottom in the region in terms of capital investment per resident. On capital schemes since 1980, Trafford is the only district which has not had a large capital project. Again I ask why.

Mr. Kaufman: Because Trafford is under Tory control.

Sir Fergus Montgomery: The right hon. Gentleman is quite right. Trafford is under Tory control. I note that the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) is to wind up this debate. He is my pair, and I must warn him always to say nice things about me or else I shall pair


with someone else. I also warn him that, as Chairman of the Committee of Selection, I will put him on a Committee that will sit for a long time.

Mr. Nicholas Brown: The hon. Gentleman should consider the laws of supply and demand a little more carefully than he seems to be doing.

Sir Fergus Montgomery: I will heed what my pair has said.
When we were unsuccessful last year, we did get a ray of hope: we were told that there was a long-standing practice of the regional health authority that schemes which were shortlisted one year, if unsuccessful, would be shortlisted and approved the year after. So yet another bid was made. No one can claim that Trafford health authority is not persistent. On 9 March of this year, a presentation was made to members of the regional health authority. We were told that we were on a shortlist of four. On 22 March, the regional health authority papers were received, which recommended that all four schemes should proceed. On 23 March, the regional health authority, without a vote, approved the other three schemes and rejected the south Trafford community hospital. That decision has caused great anger in my constituency.
I am told that there is to be a site visit by regional health authority officers later this month. I urge my right hon. Friend to pass on my views to the Secretary of State for Health and to ask her to do some plain talking to the regional health authority. I want the scheme to be given a firm commitment, and I shall raise the issue at every opportunity until I succeed. I am asking not for preferential treatment, but for a fair deal for the people of my constituency.
I wish to deal next with the Criminal Justice Act 1991 and the need to amend it. The legislation was brought in with the best of intentions, but it is seriously flawed. I get depressed when I see magistrates who have served for years and been of great public service resigning because they feel that they cannot cope with the job that they have to do.
I draw my right hon. Friend's attention particularly to juvenile offenders and to the front page of today's edition of the Daily Mail, which makes harrowing reading. It reports the case of a 14-year-old boy, branded an outlaw by a judge, who had his friends laughing and cheering when he was once more placed under the supervision of a council which has admitted that it cannot contain him. Before yesterday's appearance, he had been convicted 42 times in two years. It is worth noting that the magistrate is quoted as saying:
We feel very strongly, as does the public, that these offences warrant a custodial sentence … However, our hands are tied
under the new Act. The Northumbria police federation spokesman said:
Our officers are very, very frustrated and annoyed that the Criminal Justice Act means nothing can be done with persistent offenders of this age.
It is a complete waste of time. We have arrested this boy more times than we care to count. Sometimes he's back on the streets quicker than the officers who arrested him".
Action is desperately needed in cases of that kind.
The seriousness of the situation has been brought home to me recently. In my constituency we have the Beechmount children's home, which is now regarded as unsuitable because it does not comply with the conditions imposed under the Children Act 1989. The council is

therefore planning two new eight-bedded children's homes as a replacement. It has been decided that one of the homes will be located in my constituency.
The site was chosen in June 1992, and that is when the council should have consulted local residents to make clear to them what was happening and to listen to their views, but it was only recently, when the planning application came up, that the storm broke in the area. There have been massive protests from residents and a packed public meeting was addressed by the chairman of the social services committee and officers from the social services department. At the end of it all, there was a feeling among local residents that their views had not been listened to and that the council had made up its mind. It is the not-in-my-backyard syndrome, where everyone says, "Yes, we must have such places", but nobody wants them in their district. The residents in that area feel genuine anger at the lack of consultation and believe that their views have been disregarded. There is great anxiety that juvenile delinquents on remand could be placed in that institution. It is imperative that people should know exactly what changes in the Criminal Justice Act are envisaged and what is to be done to ensure that dangerous and persistent young offenders are placed in secure accommodation.
Both the issues that I have raised today are of great importance to my constituents. Before the House rises for the Easter recess, I should like an assurance that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will raise my strong concerns with the Ministers responsible.

Mr. John Fraser: I wish to raise an issue of urgent importance. It is the time of year when university students are entering the final part of their degree courses and are thinking of making the transition from obtaining academic qualifications to obtaining professional qualifications. It is crucial for the Government to address the discrimination that occurs when young people try to qualify as practising lawyers, either barristers or solicitors.
If we want a profession and judiciary that reflect the society in which we live and in which the judiciary sits in judgment, we must guarantee that there are no unjust hurdles or obstacles for anyone with ability and determination to qualify for those professions. Sadly, financial pressures on local education authorities—which, for many of them, includes capping—result in discrimination against potential trainee lawyers on the grounds of their social status, which often coincides with discrimination on the grounds of ethnic origin.
That discrimination and the barriers against entry to the profession have increased disturbingly in recent years. For someone from a working-class or poorer family, the chances of entering university are always diminished—any statistics on entry to further education demonstrate that. But the chances of qualifying as a barrister or solicitor are much smaller for those who are not affluent, who have many more hurdles to jump.
One reason for the problem is that in order to become a practising solicitor it is usual—if not absolutely necessary—to obtain a university degree, not exclusively in law. Mandatory grants from the local authority are available for that degree. Having obtained that university degree, a prospective solicitor needs to complete a one-year course to gain a final professional qualification.


It is only then that the prospective lawyer can begin the two years of practical training. The grant for the tuition for the professional examination to become a lawyer is discretionary, not mandatory. A trainee lawyer cannot receive a mandatory grant for that professional examination, without which a lawyer's training is incomplete. Without that final qualification, the degree for which students are about to sit their finals is as useless as a car with one wheel missing. The matter is urgent; students need an announcement now as they need to be able to plan their transition and complete their professional qualifications.
The pressure on local education authorities, including the pressure of capping, is enormous. It means that in the poorest parts of Britain discretionary grants have virtually run out. I am making a specific case for the profession as I want to keep my speech relatively narrow, but the case has a wider application. Discretionary grants have run out throughout much of the country. There is a clear financial discrimination against people who want to enter the law. The Government should make mandatory grants—subject to capital and income tests-available for the final part of the professional examinations.

Mr. Barry Porter: I agree that there is an enormous problem, which the hon. Gentleman is right to highlight. Has he considered whether the Bar Council, the Law Society or the profession generally could make such provision? Ultimately, law chambers, professional firms and the profession generally will benefit from students gaining such qualifications. I am not sure whether it is possible for local education authorities to bear that burden now and perhaps we should look elsewhere.

Mr. Fraser: I shall come to that issue, but I want to be fairly brief.
The matter is urgent as, with the recession, many firms, including big city solicitors and those normally deemed to be affluent, are not investing money in training schemes. In fact, they are often making redundancy payments to lawyers as a consequence of the recession. There is a case for a training board for solicitors. There are training boards in many other professions, trades and skills. However, the Government are winding up training boards, rather than establishing them.
A distinction can be made between the legal profession and some other professions. If someone wants to become an architect, he or she can, I understand, receive a mandatory grant to cover all the necessary academic training needed to qualify as an architect. That is certainly true in the teaching profession, where students receive grants for gaining the degree of Bachelor of Education. They may then begin their vocational training without the interregnum period of one year when they have to manage on their own if they cannot receive a discretionary grant from their local authority.
I am not saying that there is malicious discrimination, but there is discrimination on the grounds of people's social or ethnic status which affects those with working-class backgrounds. I made inquiries of a number of London boroughs, many of which had large black populations and were some of the poorest boroughs, not just in London, but throughout the country.
Ealing, a large and relatively poor borough, receives no discretionary grants. One third of Ealing's population comes from non-white, ethnic groups. Hackney, one of the poorest boroughs in the country, receives no discretionary grants and one third of its population comes from minority ethnic groups. Haringey, which has similar statistics for the composition of its population, receives no discretionary grants. Harrow, admittedly a Conservative borough, but one which has a relatively high ethnic population, receives no discretionary grants. In my borough of Lambeth, which is poor—either the second or the fourth most deprived in the country—three out of 10 people come from non-white ethnic groups, there is a high concentration of working-class and unemployed people and it receives no discretionary grants.
In Newham, four out of every 10 of the population come from ethnic minority groups and the borough is relatively poor. It receives no discretionary grants. The same is true of Tower Hamlets, which is a relatively poor borough. Only one borough among such a group receives any discretionary grants: the London borough of Brent. However, I am told that even in that borough the grants are limited in scope and may be abolished.
Other statistics provided by the College of Law show that in 1989–90, 64 per cent. of students who had received their degrees and were going on to obtain their final professional qualifications received local authority discretionary grants. In the year 1992–93, only 24 per cent. of the students going to the College of Law will do so with a grant from their local authority. Other surveys carried out by the College of Law highlight a serious problem. They show that 58 per cent. of a sample of almost 100 law students who had been offered places at professional training schools—which are like gold dust—had to turn them down. Some 58 per cent. of those who turned down their places had to do so for financial reasons because in most cases they could not get a discretionary grant from their local authority.
An even worse scandal is illustrated by the case of one of my constituents, a working-class woman who was refused a discretionary grant. She used her own money to study for her first degree at university and did not receive a single penny of the mandatory grant. She then funded herself to take and pass the common professional examination—because she did not have a law degree—but on the final lap of the course to qualify as a solicitor, she was refused a discretionary grant because there was no money in the kitty. That is an appalling state of affairs.
The combination of the discretionary grant system for professional examinations for trainee lawyers and the financial pressure on local authorities results in discrimination against working-class students. It is no good mincing words—they are poorer people.
Furthermore, there is discrimination against minorities—as my figures from London boroughs show. There is discrimination against married women who may have degrees, who have started a family and then want to get professional qualifications later in life, but cannot get any kind of grant. The worst kind of discrimination occurs against those who paid for their own degree courses and still cannot get a grant for the last year of their professional qualifications.
The dramatic collapse in public funding for those wanting to go into the legal profession inevitably narrows the base of the profession and guarantees the continued narrow social base of the judiciary and has further effects.


I am not criticising individual members of the judiciary because I have a good deal of admiration for people such as the Lord Chief Justice and Lord Justice Woolf. Figures show that the judiciary—especially the senior judiciary—is dominated by people who went either to Oxford or Cambridge, who came from affluent backgrounds, who on the whole are male, white and from upper-class backgrounds. I do not mean all the judiciary and I stress that I am not criticising individuals, but the narrowing of the profession means a narrowing of the base from which the judiciary is drawn.
It may be possible to have sponsorship—the firm of which I am a member provides some sponsorship—but the recession has reduced that possibility. That is why the matter is more urgent than ever before. The recession has reduced the amount of available sponsorship so that those practices dealing with legal aid—the sort of high street practice which a working-class person would be able to get into more often, but not exclusively—are the least equipped to afford to take on trainee solicitors, or articled clerks as they used to be called. That was how I started. It is not malicious but real discrimination against people on the grounds of their social status before they study for articles.
To illustrate how such discrimination can be compounded, the Society of Labour Lawyers conducted a survey recently and found that black law students were rejected five times more often than white students when applying to law practices. That is a considerable hurdle to leap before entering the profession.
I appreciate that the profession is concerned about equal opportunities. The Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 was introduced exactly for that purpose. If we want a classless society and a classless nation, we must have a classless judiciary and a classless legal profession—including stipendiary magistrates, county court judges, recorders and even the highest judges in the land—from which that is drawn. A dramatic collapse in the discretionary grants system and the number of less affluent people able to enter the profession means that in 10 or 15 years' time the judiciary will not reflect the society in which we live.
If the Government were to announce that grants to enter the profession for that single year were not discretionary but mandatory, the problem would be solved. "Mandatory" is the right word because the House has a duty to ensure that we create a classless society in which the professions and the judiciary are not dominated by a single segment of the population.

Mr. John Carlisle: I hope that the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) will forgive me if I do not follow the road that he has just travelled, which is obviously one of which he has great knowledge and expertise. I also hope that he will realise that I offer him no discourtesy when I say that I am a little disappointed that the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) was not called before him. If that had happened, it would have given me the chance to thank the hon. Member for Tooting for his kind words after my maiden speech some 14 years ago. I am still awaiting an opportunity to do so. If he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and follows me, he may wish to reiterate those remarks of many years ago.
Before we rise for the Easter recess, I wish to draw the attention of the House to two matters that have become topical within the past 24 hours. The first is raves, which was the subject of a statement from my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, in answer to a question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Westminister, North (Sir J. Wheeler). The second is illegal camping by gipsies, which was the subject of a statement by my right and learned hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.
Regrettably, my constituency and others have, over the past few months, suffered from the new rave parties, which have meant many thousands of youngsters gathering together in various locations, frequently illegally and usually on a Saturday evening, to enjoy musical entertainment. That sounds completely innocent, but more often than not they take place in buildings that are unsuitable and unsafe for such gatherings. It is also regrettable that—admittedly allegedly—they are a haven for drug pushers and dealers, to the detriment of the young people involved.
We in the Luton area have had our fair share of problems, although the police, with the co-operation of the local councils in Bedfordshire, have taken out a High Court injunction, obviously at an expense to the local charge payers, to prevent such gatherings. Our police regularly gather together on a Friday or even a Saturday evening to try to prevent such activities, which are so well advertised in various ways to those intending to participate that we have had to ask local forces to be, on standby so that police can stop a rave before it takes place, or go in and break it up.
That is why I particularly welcome the statement from my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary that the Government have recognised that that is a problem and will give the police new powers so that they can stop any vehicle driven by someone intending to go to a rave within five miles of the place where it is to be held. They will also try to discourage the organisers of the events.
Only recently—the case was mentioned in the national news—there was a large gathering outside Luton police station on the Sunday morning. Admittedly it consisted mainly of what I hope were peace-loving people, but attacks were made on the police station because the police had enforced the law and tried to break up those events.
I and my constituents are concerned that hard-earned council tax payers' money is having to be diverted to discourage and prevent such events. Local authorities, faced with the financial burden that they impose, and possibly the moral burden because of parental objections, have tried to offer alternative sites for legal raves, but have been turned down.
Hon. Members know that no entry fee is charged for these events, partly because they take place in other people's property, so there is no hire fee. Buildings are often broken into for the purpose. One wonders where the finances come from to keep such activities going. Their organisation must cost some money.
The biggest concern that has been expressed to me by my constituents relates to drug taking at these events. There are those who support organisers, such as Exodus in my constituency. I received a letter recently from a parent of two teenage children which says:
Whilst I am aware that drugs are a problem associated with the rave scene, I know the Exodus group are doing their best to prevent and educate young people about drug taking.


Any club or gathering of young people will have drugs present and drug-taking going on, it is part of the youth scene and will always be. Is it not better to educate young people about drugs and their dangers than try to ban events where it is suspected drugs will be present?
That may be a minority view among parents, but it is one with which we must contend. That letter would seemingly come from a responsible parent seeking my assistance, and there are others with such an attitude. The House must understand that raves are dangerous, and worrying for parents who have little idea where their children are going when they set off in their various groups, over which they have little control.
Organisers of such events have illegally squatted in various properties in and around the Luton area. Only recently, it was brought to my attention that a property purchased by the Department of Transport as a result of the proposed widening of the M I had been illegally occupied by organisers from the Exodus group. However, they have since taken out a tenancy. A redundant old people's home that is awaiting planning permission is also illegally occupied by rave organisers.
If those organisers are genuine in their intent to offer entertainment to young people and not to allow the passage and sale of drugs, surely they should not resort to such illegal activities. On Saturday morning, at my advice bureau, I shall be discussing the problem with a small delegation accompanied by a local Labour councillor. I am pleased that, as a result of the Government's statement in the past 24 hours, I shall be able to tell them that, if such organisers do act illegally, they will be sat on by Her Majesty's Government.
My only regret is that legislation is to be delayed because, as the Home Secretary said, there is no room in the parliamentary timetable to bring it forward. That will be a great disappointment to my constituents, police forces, local borough councillors and everyone else involved—not least the people of Wales and the south-west who suffered last summer from illegal encampments on their land. That may have been a slightly different type of activity, but it rightly gave rise to similar Government outrage as a result of representations by hon. Members. However, because of the apparent tightness of parliamentary time, we cannot consider the matter, presumably until the new Session.
In this debate, we seek to raise matters that we believe should be dealt with before the House rises for the Easter recess, but despite the extreme powers wielded by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House in this place, he will be unable to promise me that. However, I hope that he will speak to the Home Secretary and emphasise that we could run into further trouble in the summer and that, having proposed legislation, the Government will not be thanked if it cannot be put on to the statute book.
The other half of what I wish to say is an attendant subject that has been aired frequently on the Floor of the House and was mentioned in Prime Minister's Question Time this afternoon. I make no apology for raising again the subject of illegal camping by so-called gipsies. Again, I welcome the statement made only yesterday by the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry), that, having received a consultation paper some months ago,

along with many responses to it, the Government were seriously considering legislation on the illegal occupation of public and private land by so-called gipsies.
It should be said immediately that there is a difficulty of definition, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Sir C. Onslow) identified when he introduced a Bill on the subject on 5 February—the distinction between the old, rather romantic Romany gipsy who has been with us for many centuries and has a part in Britain's life and culture, about which no one would argue, particularly in East Anglia where I live, and the new age travellers, as they are called—the tinkers or whatever—who are the scourge of so many people's lives and who have probably created an urgent need for the House to consider appropriate legislation to deal with the problem.
The problem has accelerated since the original Caravan Sites Act 1968. Lord Lubbock and Mr. Norman Dodds, then the hon. Member for Dartford, introduced legislation intended to cope with some 3,500 gipsies. We are now faced with some 13,500 people—if one can count them—who purport to be gipsies, but who in no sense are part of the original number.
It is the behaviour of the travellers which has caused so much trouble and distress to our constituents. They illegally occupy land, often breaking through padlocks on farm land, parking on lay-bys or attendant ground near roads, harassing farmers, going close to residential areas and sometimes moving on to building sites which are often owned by distant landlords or public authorities.
Only recently, in the Leagrave area of Luton, we had a problem with travellers squatting on a piece of land owned by British Rail. The Government have given increased powers to the police and the courts to move such people on more quickly than used to be the case, but it still takes time to move illegal occupants.
The second aspect is the the fact that, almost without exception, such people behave badly. Many of my hon. Friends will have had experience of constituents complaining about the bad behaviour of travellers. There is verbal abuse, not just from adults but from the children as well, physical abuse if people try to reason with them or ask them to reduce their activities, and the damage that they inflict on property in the countryside, in towns, on building sites or wherever. Such behaviour is the inevitable consequence of illegal occupation by a group of travellers. In addition, they often perform illegal activities—some admittedly alleged and hearsay—in and around the areas where they choose to squat.
Not long ago, near my own home, a local shopkeeper was harassed by a group of travellers pilfering and stealing certain items, and the poor man and his wife and family were totally unable to stop that intrusion. Most constituents could give witness to the fact that shoplifting occurs, that the menace of burglary is always present and that burglaries occur.
The last act of bad behaviour of travellers is the mess they leave. Apart from the obvious danger to human and animal health, an enormous amount of rubbish is left for someone else to clear up—either the landowner, at his own expense, or the local council. I pay credit to my own local authority of Mid-Bedfordshire for clearing up such sites. That is done at a cost to the council tax payer, with no contribution by those who used the site.
Remedies to remove such people must be found much more quickly, so I welcome the announcement by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment


that the police will have powers to move on such travellers, and that caravan sites owned and run by gipsies themselves will be developed.
I had hope that legislation would reach the statute book sooner rather than later, and I am disappointed that it will be later. When it does, I trust that local authorities will talk to responsible gipsy organisations, which one hopes will purchase and run sites, because they are fed up with being tarred with the brush of the travellers—as other are tired of the nuisance caused by travellers who do nothing more than opt out of society and every form of responsibility.
Only recently, a site was proposed in my constituency, near the villages of Westoning and Harlington. For reasons that I have described, the villagers objected to that proposal, rightly, to their Member of Parliament. I received shoals of letters and many personal representations. There were a couple of public meetings, and both local parish councils opposed the site. The most forcible objections came from the local McIntyre home for the handicapped, which was desperately worried that people of the kind likely to occupy such a site would cause difficulties for the home's residents.
I made my objections known to the county council in a fairly forcible manner—so forcible that I was stamped upon by the Commission for Racial Equality for my remark that such persons had no place in my constituency, which the commission deemed to be racist, and which therefore made me liable to prosecution.
In the debate on 5 February, my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) related a similar problem when he objected on behalf of his constituents to the illegal occupation of land. The CRE immediately prosecuted him. In my case, a court order was entered against me. It is disgraceful that Members of Parliament, who express sometimes personal opinions but mainly opinions put by their constituents, should be abused by an organisation such as the Commission for Racial Equality in an attempt to prevent them from voicing objections that are made to them.
Apparently the CRE has the power to attempt to curb views expressed by Members of Parliament. I concur in that regard with my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford. In my own case, when the CRE decided not to prosecute me for the remarks that I had made on behalf of my constituents, the Crown prosecution service, not wanting to miss out on the act, jumped in and stated that it intended to prosecute me. There followed lengthy police interviews with me and various objectors, as well as with witnesses from the local television and radio stations and newspapers, which continued for some 12 months. At the end of the day, the Crown prosecution service decided that I should not be prosecuted.
I strongly object to an attempt, even by that organisation, to curb the remarks of a Member of Parliament made without the privilege attached to comments made on the Floor of the House. That incident personally cost me a considerable amount of money in solicitors' fees. I am not particularly bothered about that—I am more worried about representations. However, it is wrong that Members of Parliament who want to voice objections should be complained against by such organisations.
I am delighted that the Government have introduced two relevant measures, but in the discussions that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has with his

colleagues in the Home Office and in the Department of the Environment, I hope that he will make it clear that, although both measures are admirable, time must be found to debate them and to put them on the statute book at the earliest opportunity.
The scourge I have described is, regrettably, growing. Some constituents are suffering the consequences daily. If raves continue as they are, young people will be in danger. Residents also are in danger, and their homes and lives are ruined by the presence of such people. I urge the Government, having taken the initiative, to take up the cudgels sooner rather than later.

Mr. Tom Cox: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle). We have both been Members of Parliament for some time and, although we may not have much in common on many political issues, the great strength of the House is that right hon. and hon. Members respect one another and regard each other as not only parliamentary colleagues but friends. I listened with great interest to the hon. Gentleman's views on the two subjects that he raised. Thankfully, my constituents do not suffer from either problem, but I know that many right hon. and hon. Members, irrespective of party, have constituents who do.
Although the kind of parties to which the hon. Gentleman referred are not common in my constituency, my constituents suffer from the continuous playing of loud music, hour after hour. People are driven to total distraction. The police say, "What can we do? We cannot keep going there." I share the hon. Gentleman's welcome for any power that the police or any other authority can be given by the Government to bring some justice to constituents who suffer continuous playing of loud music. As the lighter evenings approach in the spring and summer, by golly, they will suffer yet again. The hon. Member for Luton, North has done the House a service in raising those two issues.
In the Christmas Consolidated Fund debate, I addressed the House on Kashmir, and I return to that subject today. It is an issue which concerns Parliament, because many right hon. and hon. Members, irrespective of party, have constituents with a deep interest in the affairs of Kashmir. The sad and tragic well-documented events of the past are still occurring, despite the worries and protests of individuals and organisations that are deeply concerned about the role and behaviour of the Indian security forces in occupied Kashmir.
Important changes have taken place. For instance, the all-party parliamentary Kashmiri group met the Foreign Secretary in the House on 18 January. The meeting was extremely well attended: it was attended both by Labour and Conservative Members, and by Liberal Democrats. I have already paid a warm tribute personally to the Foreign Secretary, who spent well over an hour at the meeting and listened to the comments of virtually every hon. Member who attended it. Having done so, he said—among many other things—that he was deeply concerned by the lack of action to protect the human rights of people in the occupied area of Kashmir, from the very young to the very elderly. He also agreed with the group that an all-party parliamentary delegation should be allowed to visit the area.
Both the Foreign Secretary and members of the group made many other comments during the meeting. The right hon. Gentleman said that he was there to hear Members' views because he, in turn, would brief the Prime Minister before his official visit to India a few days later: that, indeed, had been the purpose of the meeting itself.
I have tabled a number of questions to the Prime Minister about his visit. I tabled one on 22 January; the Prime Minister replied:
I expect my discussions with the Indian Prime Minister to include the situation in Kashmir and our concerns about human rights."—[Official Report, 22 January 1993; Vol. 217, c. 527.]
We must assume that such discussions took place, but many of us find it regrettable that we have learnt little about them, except from press reports. The Prime Minister has made no statement to the House, and he clearly will not do so now.
On 17 February, I asked the Prime Minister how he intended to monitor the commitment of the Prime Minister of India to respect human rights in Kashmir. He replied that he would reply to me shortly. I am still waiting for that reply; I assume that it will come eventually.
The Prime Minister of Pakistan visited London this week, and met our Prime Minister. We must assume that they discussed the issue of Kashmir, but the House has had no opportunity to ask the Prime Minister about those discussions. Many hon. Members, irrespective of party, are deeply concerned: the Kashmiri issue is fundamentally important to the House. It was a British Parliament which, 40-odd years ago, made a clear commitment to the people of Kashmir that they would be allowed to choose their future. Sadly, they have not had that opportunity.
We know. of the abuses of human rights that have been perpetrated by the Indian occupying forces. Those abuses continue. I have details of a serious incident that took place on 6 January in Sapore, which is part of the occupied area. The reports clearly state that, tragically, people were killed, and that homes, shops and businesses were deliberately burned out by the Indian security forces. Again, the House has had little or no opportunity to ask what representations the British Government are making to the Indian Government. What we do know is that, despite the Foreign Secretary's stated belief that an all-party delegation should go to Kashmir, no progress has been made in that regard.
If the Indian Government have nothing to hide, why do they repeatedly refuse to allow such visits? Many highly respected Members of Parliament from all parties, some of whom have been here for many years, belong to the Kashmiri group. They will continue to press the Indian authorities to allow an all-party delegation to go and see exactly what is happening in the part of Kashmir that is controlled by the Indian Government and their security forces.
The Indian Government are now accusing Pakistan of terrorist offences. I assume that many other hon. Members will have been sent the documents containing those allegations, which have circulated in the House for the past week or so. This week, I took up the allegations with the Pakistani high commission in London. The commission said that the Pakistani Government did not intend to enter into such a dialogue or to attack other countries as they were being attacked. The high commission made it clear

that it would welcome the United Nations, parliamentarians and independent groups, and that they could meet whomever they wished to meet to follow up the Indian Government's allegations.
Many hon. Members see that as yet another attempt by the Indian Government to distract attention from what deeply concerns the House, and is often raised here—the fundamental human right of men and women to decide their future, and the on-going abuses whose tragic occurrence was acknowledged by the Foreign Secretary. Until the Indian Government stop those abuses and allow Members of Parliament—or, indeed, other organisations—to see exactly what is happening, hon. Members will continue to put pressure on them. This is not a party issue: many Conservative Members are as committed as I am to the rights of the people of Kashmir, and I pay tribute to them.
I have referred to the events of 40-odd years ago. It is important to read speeches that were made a long time ago—speeches that have been forgotten by many people. It is interesting to read the comments of the last Viceroy of India, Lord Mountbatten, and the commitments that he gave to the people of Kashmir over 40 years ago. To those commitments we can add the resolutions on Kashmir that successive British Governments have supported.
On 8 January of this year, I received a letter from the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Mr. Lennox-Boyd). Before referring to that letter, may I thank the Leader of the House sincerely for having replied to the last debate on the Adjournment motion on this subject? He said then that he was not in a position to answer the points that I had raised, but that he would take them up. To his credit, not only did he take them up but I received a substantial reply from the Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office. I thanked him for what he said in that letter. I shall refer to a few of his comments, for it is important that they should be on the record.
In his letter the Under-Secretary of State said:
The continuing violence"—
he was referring to the violence in Kashmir—
is a reminder that the position of Kashmir cannot be allowed to fester indefinitely … We have also emphasised to the Indian Government the importance of a genuine political process within Kashmir in which the aspirations of the population can be accommodated.
The Under-Secretary's final point—the previous two are important, but this one is the reason why hon. Members are so concerned about events in Kashmir—was:
We have also impressed on the Indian Government our concerns about human rights abuses by the Indian security forces in Kashmir and the need to improve the situation there. There can be no doubt that serious abuses have taken place".
I pay tribute to the Under-Secretary's openness and
Against those comments and the background of the continuing abuse of Kashmir as a country and, more importantly, the continuing abuse of the human rights of the people of Kashmir, I have to ask when we, as a country, and the Government intend to take much more decisive action on this issue. The three countries that are most directly involved are Pakistan, India and the United Kingdom. All three countries are members of the Commonwealth. It is not as though we are involved with countries with which we have no links, or of which we have no understanding. We have known, and have had associations with, those countries for many years. Therefore, we have a very special relationship with them.
At the meeting on 18 January, the Foreign Secretary said that the Kashmiri issue would not go away and that the status quo was unacceptable. How right he was. Many hon. Members, of all parties, will use the rights that. they have, as Members of Parliament, to safeguard the interests of our constituents who have close links with Kashmir. They will also try to stop the appalling abuses that continue to be inflicted on the people of Kashmir by the Indian security forces that now occupy a country in which they are not wanted, in which they should not be and where they would not be if the people of Kashmir were given the opportunity to decide what their future should be.

Mr. William Powell: It is a pleasure, as always, to follow the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox). He does the House a considerable service by raising this issue. These occasions often lead to debates which are more interesting than those that we have on other issues during the rest of the parliamentary year and on which we spend far more time. I very much agree with what the hon. Gentleman said.
I urge my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House also to accept the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) and to convey them to his right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. I strongly support, too, what was said by the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) about the financing of legal education. Although his speech was delivered in his own distinctive and idiosyncratic style, which does not necessarily command the widest possible support in the House, the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) made a valuable point, which. is all too often overlooked by my right hon. Friends—that many of us have experienced considerable difficulty in obtaining satisfactory and quick responses from the agencies to which the right hon. Member for Gorton referred. The style of the right hon. Gentleman's speech will not necessarily command the widest possible support, but its underlying theme is more widely supported by hon. Members in all parties than my right hon. Friends may care to suppose or imagine.
There is one recommendation in the Jopling report which I hope my right hon. Friend will have no difficulty in rejecting. I know that he wishes to make progress, that he must secure wide agreement in order to make progress and that that agreement may not be so easily forthcoming now as it might have been a year ago. I refer to the recommendation that these debates should be abandoned. I hope that my right hon. Friend will reject it. These debates always lead to interesting and wide-ranging discussions. I have participated in them on many occasions, as has my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess), who I see is in his usual place. Both he and I feel nostalgic, since we shall not hear our former colleague, Sir John Stokes, speak on this occasion. He used to make distinguished contributions on the state of the nation on all occasions when these debates were held. Their echo is much missed.
I intend to return to the issue that I raised in the Christmas Adjournment motion debate—the situation in Yugoslavia, which dominated our discussions. Today that has not been the case. Nevertheless, I wish to renew the plea that I made then for further progress towards the

establishment of international criminal tribunals and an international criminal court so that the criminal justice deficiencies in Yugoslavia and in the world in general can be overcome. The establishment of such bodies would lead to more effective responses and remedies than is currently the case. This matter was raised at Prime Minister's Question Time, and I very much welcome the reply that the Prime Minister was able to give to the question of the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman), which I thought missed the point.
In response to the Christmas Adjournment motion debate, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said that he would draw my remarks to the attention of the Foreign Office, since there was no reasonable basis upon which I could expect him to reply in detail to what I had said. I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend fulfilled his undertaking, but since then I have not heard a word from the Foreign Office. All too often, unfortunately, that is par for the course. What is not so often par for the course is that, having written in considerable detail to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 22 January, I have received no reply from him. That is wholly exceptional, and I hope that it will not become a pathfinder development in terms of the way in which No. 10 operates. Nevertheless, I welcome what our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister had to say about this issue at Question Time.
Great Britain can be very proud of the way it has approached these very distressing matters in recent months. Much of the evidence about the commission of crimes and war crimes in the former Yugoslavia arises from British initiatives undertaken when this country occupied the chair of the Council of Ministers, from our work through the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe and, of course, from the commissioning of the reports of Sir John Thomson and Dame Anne Warburton. Dame Anne, who was just setting off to Yugoslavia when I raised this matter in the Christmas Adjournment motion debate, produced a report suggesting that about 20,000 crimes of rape may have been committed in the former Yugoslavia. Of course, she was accompanied on that occasion by Mrs. Simone Weil, who has just this week rejoined the French Government. A problem arises straight away. Unfortunately, there are not appended to Dame Anne Warburton's report, which consists of five pages, any witness statements or other evidence of the sort that would be admissible in a criminal court.
Fortunately, the United Nations Security Council, in resolution 780 of last autumn, established a commission of experts. Even more fortunately, it appointed as one of those experts the redoubtable and formidable Professor M. Cherif Bassiouni of De Paul university, Chicago, to whose work I have referred in the House on many occasions. Professor Bassiouni is not a man to be trifled with. He was not prepared to entertain assertions of large-scale war crimes without any accompanying evidence of the sort that could be placed before a criminal court. The commission of experts appointed him to be the rapporteur of the gathering and analysis of facts. He has been hard at work and has established a database which includes the names of about 1,000 people against whom, if they are to be placed on trial, it may be possible to secure the necessary evidence of serious criminal offences. Professor Bassiouni is a man not to be underestimated. I shall return to his work shortly.
In resolution 808, the Security Council authorised the United Nations Secretary-General, whom I had the privilege of meeting just a week or two ago, to produce by 22 April a report on how the Council might proceed to deal with the prosecution of persons wanted for war crimes and crimes in Yugoslavia. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister referred to that report this afteroon. My first plea to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, and through him to our right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is that when the Secretary-General puts his report before the Security Council, the Council is urged to proceed as rapidly as possible to a satisfactory conclusion. From discussions I had recently in New York with the Security Council president for this month—the representative of Pakistan—I know that he wants the Council to move quickly. However, the report is to be produced by 22 April and May will arrive shortly, bringing a new Security Council president. No doubt, these matters will then take a week or two—perhaps more—to be resolved satisfactorily.
The task of prosecuting the 1,000 or so people whose names are on the database that Professor Bassiouni has established is indeed formidable. Some of the problems must be faced head-on by the members of the Security Council and by the international community at large. It will probably take two years to prosecute 1,000 people. Court buildings will be required; a prosecutor will be necessary, and he will need a staff; there will have to be an indictment chamber—hon. Members may call it what they will—for processing the applications of any special prosecutor with a view to bringing persons to trial. There are, of course, issues such as whether people should be tried in their absence. Indeed, there are all sorts of practical problems. However, these are no greater—in my view, they are rather less great—than the practical problems of bringing to trial alleged war criminals resident in this country who may have committed unspeakable offences in Nazi-occupied territory 50 years ago, and we have provided a budget of about £10 million each year for the purpose of bringing those people to trial.
Although in the case of Yugoslavia the problems are great, they are not insuperable. Where there is a will, there is a way. Having talked to more than two thirds of the members of the Security Council in recent weeks, I am certain that there is a will and that the Council can move to a satisfactory conclusion. I suggest that the Council appoint a chief judge at a very early stage. A court centre will be needed. There are only three possible locations—Trieste in Italy, Ljubljana in Slovenia and Pecs in Hungary. Trieste will probably be the choice. I hope that discussions are being held with the Italian Government to establish whether the necessary space can be made available there.
Above all else, a special prosecutor will be needed, and he will need a staff to collate and prepare the evidence and to place before the indicting chamber such information, warrants, and so on, as may be necessary. I see no reason why, if the Security Council moves relatively quickly, it should not be possible to start some criminal trials before the end of this year. There is one very obvious candidate for appointment as special prosecutor—none other than Professor M. Cherif Bassiouni, a man of very great experience who has been consulted on many occasions by

Governments across the world in relation to war crimes. The sooner he can be appointed and his office established, the better.
As the Secretary-General has pointed out, all this will cost money. Professor Bassiouni's own estimate is £50 million for a two-year period. I am delighted to say that, as one would expect, the Government of Canada have taken a very responsible and encouraging initiative. They have offered money, to be paid into a trust account for this purpose as soon as such an account can be established, and staff to assist the special prosecutor. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House might suggest to our right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary that Great Britain should follow Canada's admirable lead, which I know that other countries are interested in following. Resources will be required, but this action is necessary. The world is appalled at the things we have seen on our television screens, heard about on our radios, and read about in our newspapers. The world is entitled to say that this is not right. We cannot allow it to happen without doing everything possible to ensure that the criminals are brought to justice. If the United Kingdom and other countries are able to take action in respect of unspeakable crimes in Nazi-occupied Germany, surely we can do similarly in respect of what happened in Yugoslavia not 50 years or even 15 months ago but in the very recent past.
Two deficiencies need to be dealt with. War crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity are outlawed by successive Geneva conventions. The world has said on many occasions that such behaviour is outside the realm of what can be accepted by a civilised world community. The trouble about the Geneva conventions is that they do not provide the means by which these activities can be made justiciable. A tribunal would give effect to what is contained in the Geneva conventions, which would provide a means by which the leaders responsible for ordering genocide, mass rape and other crimes could be held to account on this earth instead of only at the eternal gates to the celestial world to which we must all aspire in due course.
Another aspect which needs careful attention is the administration of the ordinary natural criminal law which existed in Yugoslavia and which exists in this or any country which abides by ordinary human standards. Although murder, rape, torture and grievous bodily harm—crimes that we all readily recognize—could be tried by the domestic courts of Yugoslavia or any surviving parts of Yugoslavia, we must confess that people inside and outside Yugoslavia would have rather limited confidence in the quality of justice administered by them.
I pay tribute to the reporting which has appeared day after day in The Independent, which has brought many of these matters to this country's attention. I have no doubt that there have also been such articles in foreign newspapers, but The Independent has a remarkable record of bringing home to us exactly what is happening. An article yesterday referred to the so-called war crimes tribunals in Bosnia, which have been held recently. Its author was the east European editor, Mr. Barber. Anyone reading the article will know that, if what he reported is indeed what is happening, the quality of criminal justice being administered by those courts does not inspire much confidence.
We need an international tribunal instead of lynching courts—as they would be regarded in the constituent parts of Yugoslavia—because such a tribunal would administer


a quality of justice which would inspire more widespread support throughout the world than the domestic tribunals as currently constituted. There is no reason why an ad hoc tribunal should not administer the ordinary criminal law of Yugoslavia. In a report to which I referred before Christmas, Ambassador Correll showed that there was nothing deficient about the criminal law in Yugoslavia before that country collapsed, so it would not be a question of introducing new crimes which were unknown when the atrocities were committed. The tribunal would administer the criminal law which was well understood by each and every one of the people who may have been responsible for murder, rape, grievous bodily harm or torture.
The immediate need in Yugoslavia is very clear. The urgency is obvious. The necessary will exists in the Security Council. There is no reason why we should not make progress very quickly this early summer to establish a tribunal capable of doing the job as we would wish. If a chief judge and, above all, a special prosecutor could be appointed quickly, the work could get under way. There is no need for any delay, although there may be practical problems.
The fact that there may be problems highlights one of the deficiencies of the present international legal system—the absence of permanent machinery to deal with breaches of the Geneva conventions on genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity and prisoners of war. The conventions have the support of the world community with very few exceptions, but we must have the machinery to make these matters justiciable and enforceable;in an international court under the authority of the Security Council.
As soon as we have established a tribunal for Yugoslavia, I hope that it will be possible for the Security Council to establish a necessary permanent court not only to deal with what I call the Geneva convention heads of international crime—important though that matter is—but to meet some of the deficiencies in the administration of criminal justice in our own regions and between countries in Europe. I am thinking of extradition, the production of witnesses, and so on—transnational matters which lead to difficulties in securing the effective administration of a criminal justice system. As a supplement to, or additional feature of, our range of courts for dealing with these criminal matters, an international court should be established for the world under the Security Council.
I know that the expansion of institutions within the European Community is not a popular cause to espouse, not least in the House, but one of the biggest deficiencies in EC institutions is the absence of any effective supranational criminal court mechanism for dealing with crimes which cross frontiers. I cite the most obvious example.
Although it is hateful to people like me, who have been brought up in the British court system, to admit that the quality of justice administered in our courts is not the highest, the reputation of our criminal courts in dealing with IRA terrorists has taken a tremendous knock. We know how difficult it is now to secure the extradition of persons wanted for serious crimes and who are alleged to be members of the IRA and engaged in IRA activities.
I suspect that it would be easier to secure extradition from the Republic of Ireland to an international court rather than to an exclusively British court. An

international court on which an Irish judge was sitting would inspire confidence that it was not just another British court. There would be British prosecutors bringing evidence established by the British police, but people would nevertheless be tried under rules which made it that much easier for those wanted in connection with serious crime to be brought before a criminal court. It would be easier for people to be tried properly, and, if necessary, punished properly.
I welcome the opportunity to raise these important issues again. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House knows me well enough to understand that he may not have heard from me for the last time on these subjects, but it is time to make progress not only on Yugoslavia but on the wider issue of world jurisdiction.

Mr. Jim Marshall: I shall not respond at length to the hon. Member for Corby (Mr. Powell) but I shall make two frivolous remarks and then move on to a third and more serious issue.
The hon. Gentleman said that he had not received replies to two letters, one to the Prime Minister and one to the Foreign Secretary. He will be reassured that, at this very moment, civil servants in Downing street and in the Foreign Office are probably looking through their files to ensure that he gets a reply at least by tomorrow morning if not before.
The hon. Gentleman paid tribute to The Independent, which he claims—I have no reason to disbelieve him—is highlighting the situation in the former Yugoslavia. He will need the Easter recess to write the column that will be offered to him as a result of the praise that he lavished on that newspaper.
I now come to my substantive points. I do not believe that people have expressed sufficient revulsion against the horrors that we see day in and day out in the former Yugoslavia, especially in Bosnia. If only one tenth of the stories that we hear are true, that still represents a crime against humanity. The hon. Member for Corby referred to a thousand cases having been documented. I am not sure what kind of cases they are, but the human indignity and the violence against human beings highlighted in just those few cases show the depths to which humanity has stooped, especially in Bosnia.
I share the hon. Gentleman's desire to do something, and to bring people to justice if that is at all possible, but I believe that, when history comes to be written, western Europe, especially the European Community, will be condemned for what has happened in the former Yugoslavia. There is no doubt in my mind that the dash to recognise the new republics, largely at the behest of Germany, helped to precipitate the horrendous situation that we now witness.
I must voice the fears that some of my Muslim constituents have expressed to me—that the Muslims in Bosnia have been let down by this country and by the European Community as a whole. They often express to me the opinion—I hope that it is not well founded—that, if those people were Christians rather than Muslims, the western world would not have stood by and let the atrocities continue on their present scale. I hope that my constituents are not right about that, but I strongly suspect


that, if Christians rather than Muslims were being massacred, the west would not have stood by for so long and let that level of outrage continue.
I should now like to make four or five quick points, if I may, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It was mentioned at Prime Minister's question time today that we have nearly reached the anniversary of the general election—I can see a smile on the face of the hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess). Most of us will recall that, this time last year, we were girding our loins for the last week of the general election campaign. I was out on the streets and then waiting to settle down to watch the "Nine O'Clock News", with the Prime Minister on his soap box. Twelve months later, I feel, as do an increasing number of my constituents, that the Tory party election campaign has been shown to be a complete sham and a bundle of lies. My constituents certainly feel that they have been cynically betrayed by the promises that the Government made in April last year and the way in which those promises have been thrown away.
I have a great deal of respect for the Leader of the House, but he was one of the Cabinet Ministers who went round during the campaign condemning the Labour party for its policy on national insurance contributions; yet a few weeks ago, the right hon. Gentleman, still a member of a Conservative Cabinet, happily trooped through the Lobby to support the Chancellor of the Exchequer's increase in national insurance contributions.
Twelve months ago, Ministers were saying that the green shoots of economic growth and increasing activity were well rooted and would bear fruit over the following year. But I must tell the Leader of the House that the past 12 months have been relatively fallow in terms of seeing the shoots of economic growth take off.
Among my constituents, there is a feeling that the Government won the election last year on the basis of a lie. During that campaign, and in the 12 months since, the Government have done a great deal to increase ordinary people's cynicism about politicians in general and Tory politicians in particular. It is a great misfortune that we cannot turn the clock back, because if we could confront the British people with the promises that the Government made last year compared with the outcome of events over the past 12 months, that would show that the Tory party, especially the present-day Tory party, is prepared to stoop to any level, tell any lie and repeat any calumny in order to keep its grasping fists on the levers of power in this country.
I should like to give three or four specific examples of Government decisions over the past 12 months that have had a serious adverse effect on my constituents. It goes without saying that the Budget decision to levy VAT on domestic heating will have a dramatic penal effect on many low-paid families in my constituency. It makes no difference how social security benefits may be uprated; many low-paid families will still have to pay the full increase arising from VAT.
I should like the Leader of the House to tell me and my constituents whether, if in the winter of 1994–95 they have to choose between leaving the domestic heating on or switching it off because they cannot afford the increased prices, they should switch it off and be cold. I should like at least one Cabinet Minister to tell me the answer so that I can pass it on to my constituents. I know that the Leader

of the House is a man of integrity, so I should like him to tell me, and my constituents who will be in that position next year or the year after, what decision they should take.
My second specific constituency point concerns the Sikh community, and I have raised it with the Leader of the House before. The right hon. Gentleman will know that a European directive will compel everyone, including Sikhs, to wear protective helmets in all industrial situations. He will also know that Sikhs are now exempted from the requirement to wear crash helmets on motor bikes and hard-top safety helmets on construction sites, because successive Governments, Labour as well as Conservative, have agreed that they should be exempted for religious reasons. The European directive, although it will not reverse those two exemptions, will compel Sikhs to wear protective helmets on all industrial premises.
The Secretary of State for Employment has refused to take the matter seriously or to go back to Brussels and seek to renegotiate the directive. She fails to understand the anger and outrage in the Sikh community caused by the new directive. Sikhs are firmly convinced that, once the directive is fully implemented, either they will have to disregard their religion and wear the safety helmets, or, if they refuse to wear them, they will lose their jobs.
Increasingly, the Sikh community feels that one consequence of the European directive will be increased unemployment among male Sikhs. I ask the Leader of the House again, even at this late stage, to seek to convince his fellow Cabinet Minister of the urgency of the matter, of the outrage among the Sikh community, and of the need, if it is not too late, to renegotiate with our Community colleagues to try to widen the exemptions for the Sikh community.
My final point concerns section 11 expenditure; I have raised it before with the Leader of the House. Hon. Members will be aware that that expenditure, which has existed for many years, is directed towards local authorities which have responsibility for substantial numbers of children from ethnic minorities, specifically from Commonwealth countries. It has assisted in ensuring that children who are taught English as a second language can compete on a more even footing with other children.
There is a widespread fear that the reduction in section 11 expenditure next year will mean that many teachers will lose their jobs, but, more importantly, that many children will suffer adversely because they will no longer receive the extra teaching they need to be able to compete on an equal footing with other children. I plead with the Leader of the House to talk to his right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and emphasise to him the need to get the Home Office to see sense and reverse the decision.

Mr. David Porter: In the debate on the summer Adjournment last year, I was fortunate enough to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to raise some issues about the quality of life in rural areas. I did so bearing in mind the approaching tourist season, the ageing profile and shortage of youngsters, the changing agricultural base, the fact that one in five people in England lives in a rural area, and the background of a real urban/rural divide.
I said that any aspect of life today has a rural angle and that if we accept cost-benefit audits, citizens' audits, environmental audits, family audits and audits of audits,


we should consider the idea of rural audits for all departments of government, local and national. Unfortunately, my time ran out in that debate and I was unable to raise various issues which I hope to deal with now because a focus on rural England is urgent at this point in the economic cycle.
Small village schools have often been called the cement of society. Few who have seen what can be achieved in village schools would disagree. Obviously, a school for every village is not on, and village schools do not have to be small, but where bussing has to take place, it would sometimes make as much sense to bus town children into the country as the reverse. It must be recognised that it costs a local authority more to deliver the same standard of service to a rural area than to a built-up area. That is nobody's fault but a basic fact of life.
Equally with social services, emergency services, community care, health care, or indeed any service, the distances involved add on costs that towns do not have. No doubt we have all mouthed the well-worn mantra that rural shops, post offices, garages, pubs and even the telephone kiosks are the cornerstones of rural life and must be safeguarded. We often say that as yet another closes. Of course, it is true, but if the Department of Social Security experiment to encourage pensioners to accept automatic credit transfer of their pensions is made permanent, it will hit all small post office businesses hard, particularly in rural areas.
The uniform business rate has not been a full-blown salvation for some rural businesses, and often rural sub-post offices are in shared premises with general stores and other private retail businesses. More local authorities have hardship relief schemes, which I welcome, because they allow local authorities to decide their own priorities. The Post Office is asking the Department of the Environment to consider exempting from the uniform business rate the mixed business rural shops which are in post office use. That is a simple device which could be effective in money value terms.
SAVES, the Shopkeepers Association for Villages in East Suffolk, is keen to point out, rightly, that uniform business rate valuations on village shops are too high and that the criteria should perhaps be reconsidered. The Church of England's Commission on Rural Areas has recommended that help be given to village shops and post offices which are clearly community facilities. By the way, my attention has been drawn to an exercise in which £10 worth of groceries priced at an urban Sainsbury's were priced at £9·40 in a village Mace shop. On that basis, adding travel costs, it may be more expensive to shop in an urban supermarket, though choice may be greater there. It is all about affordable shopping.
"Affordable" is a word which is often applied to housing. We can all argue the need for socially affordable housing in rural areas. We can back schemes to bring it about and understand that it is part and parcel of planning. The Housing Corporation recognises a specific need for rural development schemes to provide affordable social housing in rural areas. It dispels the myth that countryside life is always idyllic because successive surveys show that the condition of housing stock is often worse in rural areas. The DOE should be congratulated on a notable shift in policy in that regard. Until recently, local authority attitudes varied. Now no local authority can duck out of its responsibility and we have the basis for a uniform national policy, subject to local conditions.
A good deal of public money has been invested in recent years, for example, in the Rural Development Commission with its rural development areas, into one of which a large part of my constituency falls. It has worked hard at encouraging community projects to diversify the rural economy, stimulating job growth. The RDC has argued for a completely new rural development initiative, forecasting that in 10 years there will be 100,000 fewer full-time employees on the land and 50,000 fewer related jobs. Even if the reduction is not as severe, the structure and operation of agriculture will change in a way without parallel in two centuries. There will be fewer land workers, but more people living in the countryside and more visiting it for leisure. Traditional agriculture will increasingly see itself as a countryside resource manager.
A recognition from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the DOE that land owners and land cultivators are countryside guardians and that their work is the best hope for our natural environment is a beginning. That phrase will be more acceptable to the tax-paying public than the misleading phrase, "paying farmers to do nothing".
One fresh idea is helping to regenerate rural enterprise. In my area, the Norfolk and Waveney training and enterprise council has a mobile tele-cottage, a bus which gathers people into one well-equipped place for work and training. Soon the idea will be expanded into redundant buildings. There is no reason why the rural village should be excluded from the global village.
National initiatives developed locally are successful too and should be recognised. A range of schemes, such as areas of outstanding natural beauty, the heritage coast, environmentally sensitive areas, and the work in my area of the Suffolk Wildlife Trust, all contribute much to saving, restoring and developing natural habitats and the rest of the landscape which is our countryside heritage. All those things bring tourists into the area. Many like what they see, usage increases and many people retire to the area. That adds to the pressure on social services, the health service and all the other services, and in some cases local people cannot acquire houses locally.
Bus deregulation, like lager, has reached many previously unreached parts and there are more bus miles, but isolation still exists in many areas. The people become the victims of a vicious circle. Isolation leads to a reduction in services and to a holiday home disease, with services for locals being further cut, leading to yet more isolation. So it goes on.
As seasons roll one into the next, there is realistic optimism. Falling interest rates help rural businesses, home buyers and builders. It must not get out of balance again. The balance of rural tourism, as the English tourist board has stressed, must be on a scale compatible with rural locations. In the future, we may not be growing too much food—we may be nearer that than we think—so not all our farmland should become adventure and theme parks. We need a balance in farmland capacity.
Equally, in the local government review, we are promised an enhanced role for parish and town councils. Let us get the balance right and give local services for local people, provided by local people, real weight in the English countryside.
In conclusion, my three arguments are, first, we need a rural audit of Government policy; secondly, we must recognise that farmers are, essentially, countryside guardians; and, thirdly, a balance must be achieved and a


balance against rurality must be redressed and then maintained properly. Being aware of the urban-rural divide means that half the battle against rural Britain becoming another country is won. The hard part is winning the other half, but we must try, because not only the quality of life for those one in five citizens who live in the rural areas but the health and well-being of our whole nation are at stake.

Mr. David Amess: Before the House adjourns for the Easter recess, I should like to draw attention to matters involving Hoover, Raoul Wallenberg, national hospital radio broadcasting and employment in my constituency. The British like a bargain. We all know that that is why they tend to vote Conservative rather than socialist. On Monday this week, I had the privilege of being the first British politician on French soil to welcome the new Conservative Government in France. O that I had the same privilege of welcoming a similar Government in Australia, but it was not to be.
As far as Hoover is concerned, I thought that it was a startling marketing exercise to offer free flights when people spent more than £100 on one of their products. Accordingly, I, my wife and my wife's parents bought Hoover products. We filled in our forms and waited for the letter to be returned when we had made the choice about the specific resort to which we wished to go.
We were absolutely astonished when the fiasco developed. I can describe it only as a fiasco. It is a fiasco, and it has been a grave deception of the British public. The free flights. to the United States campaign has boomeranged with ferocity against what I had always thought was a highly reputable organisation. It has debased the good marketing techniques which have been practised with success by other large companies. This appalling episode has brought disgrace to a truly respected household name with excellent products; it has been sabotaged by sub-standard executives, who have rightly been dismissed.
Why were the many conditions all in small print? Why did the Hoover marketing company rely on the fact that it thought that most purchasers would not understand the small print or would be satisfied to be fobbed off by excuses? Many of my constituents have written to me about the offer. As far as they are concerned, the Office of Fair Trading did not react quickly or, indeed, the matter seems to have been—dare I say it—hoovered under the carpet, hoping that it would eventually go away. I hope that this most unfortunate marketing exercise will be put right quickly so that I, my wife, my wife's parents and all the other people who purchased tickets will get that to which they believe they are entitled—their free flights.
My second subject is Raoul Wallenberg. About five years ago, I introduced a 10-minute Bill which was supported by hon. Members on both sides of the House. We obtained an unopposed Committee on the Bill, which sought to get honorary British citizenship for Raoul Wallenberg—so many other countries have given their citizenship to this Swedish diplomat who saved the lives of more than 100,000 children, women and men in the second world war, and who suddenly disappeared in 1945.
I was unsuccessful in that aim, so I decided that the next best thing would be to obtain a memorial in the centre of London so that we could all remember the achievements of Raoul Wallenberg. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have asked me what progress I have made. For about four years, we have been continually frustrated. Only recently, discussions took place with the local authority, because we wanted a statue to be located somewhere near the Swedish embassy. Rather than the local authority approving a statue, the discussions have resulted in the offer of a park bench. That is a disgrace and an insult.
The first site to be considered was in Bryanston square, which was owned by Bryanston square trustees. The chairman approved the idea and was only too happy to put it to the rest of the trustees. The Rev. David Evans, who is in charge of St. Mary's parish church in Bryanston square—the pedestrian walkway would be affected—welcomed the idea.
A park bench is simply not good enough a memorial to such a magnificent person. Frankly, if it is a park bench or nothing at all, we will give the money to dedicating a wing in a hospital in the centre of London. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will pass on my concerns to the affected parties.
My third subject is national hospital broadcasting.

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Amess: No, I must press on. The hon. Gentleman has just walked into the Chamber, and it would not be fair to others.
I am the unpaid parliamentary spokesman for national hospital radio broadcasting. Most hon. Members have hospitals in their constituencies with radio broadcasting organisations. We have been trying to get a frequency for hospital radio.
I am delighted to tell the House that, through the good efforts of Councillor Alf Partridge, we secured meetings with my hon. Friends the Under-Secretary of State for National Heritage and the Under-Secretary of State for Technology at the Department of Trade and Industry. As a result of those meetings and a subsequent meeting with Mr. Peter Baldwin, who is the chairman of the Broadcasting Authority, we have made considerable progress. It appears that, at long last, there are to be pilot schemes. I hope that hon. Members who have been involved in the campaign will judge that it has been a success.
My final matter relates to employment. In the past year, my constituency of Basildon has attracted some attention, none of which has been of my making. Basildon has attracted attention for all sort of reasons. I have noticed that Labour Members seem continually to visit my constituency. I find it somewhat extraordinary that they come to the constituency which re-elected a Conservative Member of Parliament and which was responsible for having the socialist council thrown out of office last year. Labour Members seem to be making jobs an issue in my constituency.
The level of unemployment in my constituency is the same as it was when I became a Member of Parliament 10 years ago. I regret that, and I intend to continue to work towards changing it. It is extraordinary that Labour Members come to Basildon, especially when one considers


that the socialist council was thrown out of office because of all it did to destroy jobs in my constituency. Such were the disgraceful antics of the socialists in Basildon that they have left my excellent Conservative council with enormous debt. It has been left with debt on the Towngate theatre and other capital projects. The interest charges on the debt for the theatre alone are £1·5 million a year. The council has debts of £126 million, which have destroyed jobs in my constituency.
The week before the Budget, the hon. Members for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), for Peckham (Ms Harman), for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) and for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) came to Basildon town hall to launch an alternative Budget for jobs. So successful was that visit that I am delighted to tell the House that, in the unemployment figures which were announced two weeks ago, Basildon showed the largest fall in unemployment in the south-east. I hope that my hon. Friends will send out similar invitations to those four hon. Members in the light of their considerable achievements in reducing unernployment in my constituency.

Mr. Mackinlay: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Amess: No, I will not.
I hope that those same Opposition Members will support my plea to locate the headquarters of National Lotteries in Basildon. We heard a great deal about is being located in Liverpool and other parts of the country, but we in the south-east have lost many jobs in the construction industry and the service industry. I should have thought that Basildon was the ideal site for the headquarters of National Lotteries. I look forward to receiving the support of Opposition Members.
Socialists talk about unemployment. They put up boards when unemployment is rising. They keep going on about it, because the message is, "If you don't have a job, vote Labour." As soon as unemployment goes down, as happened two weeks ago, socialists on the Opposition Benches say nothing. I am delighted to tell the House that, on 14 April in the House of Commons, my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade will launch the "Buy British Goods from Basildon" campaign. We shall hold a half-day seminar, in which experts will meet all my local businesses to assist them in exploring the opportunities to sell, not only in Europe but throughout the world, the excellent goods and services we produce in Basildon. I hope that the scheme, which will undoubtedly be a success, will be copied throughout the rest of Britain.

Mr. Harry Cohen: I am grateful to have five or six minutes to speak in the debate. The House should not adjourn until we have discussed family planning services, which is what I wish to do in the time available to me.
Ironically, I wish to express support for a Minister. That may be strange for an Opposition Member, but the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Sackville), recently stated that contraceptives should be supplied to teenagers in our schools. I support that statement, although it came in for a great deal of criticism from several of his Back Benchers. It is important that we get to grips with the serious crisis of teenage pregnancies, which has come about because sex education and family planning services are simply not

good enough. They are nowhere near as good as those provided by our neighbours. The result is severe problems for the teenagers affected.
I remember raising family planning services when I was first elected as a councillor many years ago in the London borough of Waltham Forest. For doing that, I was accused of being a foolish virgin—I sent in a disclaimer especially on the foolish part. I remember the debate well. One councillor gave a long list of the different types of contraceptives, in which one wit interjected, "Withdraw!"
My resolution was that contraceptives should be supplied free. I was told that, if my resolution was passed, condoms would litter the streets. Of course, shortly afterwards, contraceptive services were taken over by the health authority, and family planning clinics started to supply contraceptives free. Condoms did not litter the streets.
We need to return to a proper family planning service. It has been seriously eroded and whittled away. It has been an expendable service for health authorities, as they have faced cash crises within the NHS. I refer the House to an excellent article by Nicki Pope in the Today newspaper of 26 March 1993. She gave some of the statistics.
Some 8,000 under-16s become pregnant every year in Britain. That is two for every secondary school. The rate is 69 in every 1,000. That is double the rate for France and six times higher than the rate for the Netherlands. In Germany only 14, and in Spain only 15, in every 1,000 under-16s become pregnant, as compared to 69 per thousand in Britain. That is the extent of the crisis. The problem is serious. Various surveys have shown that there is considerable ignorance among teenagers. Only 30 per cent. of teenage boys and 40 per cent. of teenage girls use contraception.
The article also quotes Ms Grigg of the Family Planning Association as saying:
We are doing our teenagers a grave disservice. We teach children to cross the road and stay safe, but we actively deny them access to safe sexuality.
We have the worst teenage pregnancy record in Europe. The Government must do something about it and take steps to reduce it. A much easier and cheaper supply of contraceptives needs to be available. The Government have moved in the wrong direction by putting some contraceptives on the limited list and making it harder for people to get them.
General practitioners and family planning clinics have a vital role to play in providing a cheap and easy supply of contraceptives. The service should be guaranteed confidential. I do not see why teenagers have to see their GP. They should be given contraception if they ask for it. It should be free to all teenagers, but certainly to school pupils under the age of 16.
Sex education needs to be dramatically improved. We need to get away from the priggishness with which the matter has been treated. Of course it is necessary to teach restraint and responsibility, but young people must be given knowledge. As Nicki Pope said in the article in Today, we need a comprehensive family planning service open in out-of-school hours. That should be in addition to improved GP and family planning services.
I am grateful to the House for the opportunity to say those few words.

Mr. Nicholas Brown: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) on managing to get in towards the end of the debate to make his excellent speech.
When the hon.Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) rose to make his contribution to what has been a wide-ranging debate, I slightly misheard him. When he referred to his right hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler), I thought that he was talking about graves. I thought that he was about to make a speech about the three 15p cemeteries. That would have been an unusual topic for the hon. Gentleman, but he went on to talk about not graves but raves. He has picked the right debate and the right member of the Government to address his remarks to, because if anyone can organise all-night raves, it is the Leader of the House. Since Christmas we have been treated to all-night raves on Maastricht and when we return after Easter we shall be able to have all-night raves on the Finance Bill as well. That is something that we are all looking forward to after the short break that Easter affords us.
One of the common themes in the debate has been a matter raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) and my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox). Indeed, the hon. Member for Corby (Mr. Powell) also referred to it. It is the difficulty of getting replies to correspondence from the Prime Minister.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall), who followed the hon. Member for Corby, said that now that the matter has been raised in the debate the hon. Member can be sure of getting a reply from the Prime Minister. I am not certain that that is so. My own experience has been as disappointing as that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton and my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting.
I remember writing on two occasions to the previous leader of the Conservative party, the last Prime Minister, about shipbuilding issues in east Newcastle and procurement issues on Tyneside. I received a very full reply from her on both occasions. Indeed, she did me and my then hon. Friend the Member for Wallsend, Mr. Ted Garrett, the courtesy of seeing us at one of the crucial moments in a procurement campaign after Prime Minister's questions. I appreciated that very much, particularly in view of the enormous calls on the Prime Minister's time.
However, since the change in the leadership of the Conservative party, my right hon. and hon. Friends—and I suspect that the experience of Conservative Members is the same—have been getting a letter from the Prime Minister's office thanking us for our letters and promising to reply shortly. But we never get the reply.
I have written to the Prime Minister on two occasions, again about industrial matters in the constituency, and I have had the acknowledgement but not the follow up. I am saddened to hear that my experience has been echoed by a substantial number of hon. Members who have taken part in this debate. I hope that by mentioning it from the Opposition Dispatch Box I contribute to the hon. Member for Corby's getting a reply to his letter.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton raised a specific list of constituency cases and correspondence to which he was not getting replies from agencies that come

under the general tutelage, or are the responsibility of, the Department of Social Security and the Department of Health. What has been said about the difficulty of getting replies from some of the agencies under the Department of Social Security has been echoed throughout the House. It is now a common complaint that we cannot get our constituency cases dealt with. I hope that the Leader of the House will take note of what has been said and will encourage his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, whether in France or in this country, to address the matters that have been raised.
The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery) referred to the way that Trafford is being poorly treated under the health authority's capital programme. I certainly hope that his remarks are listened to with sympathy by those on his own Front Bench, not least because, as he candidly pointed out to the House, he is my pair and obviously I wish his representations well.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to persistent juvenile offenders and cited a case from Tyneside. The issue is now probably the largest single cause of surgery work for me on Tyneside, and I suspect that that is true for other hon. Members with Tyneside constituencies. When I was elected to this place in 1983, it was very unusual for a constituent to come to the surgery and raise a question relating to crime or the justice system. Now things are quite different. It is either the largest or, given social security issues, the second largest cause of concern.
The issue is always the same: it is repeat offending by juveniles that cannot be contained by the system. It is dispiriting for the judiciary, especially magistrates, but also for the police officers, who are arresting and rearresting the same people and then seeing them go back into the community and reoffend. The position clearly requires review and I cannot stress too strongly the strength of feeling on Tyneside—I have no doubt in other inner-city areas as well—about this matter.
My hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) raised the question of access to the legal profession, meaning entry into the profession, and made the case for mandatory grants for the final part of the professional exams. It is demonstrably the case that ethnic minorities, people from working-class backgrounds and, indeed, women are under-represented in the profession, and that the mandatory awarding of grants, particularly if they could be awarded in such a way as to redress that balance, would go some way towards solving the problem. My hon. Friend spoke knowledgeably about the subject, and I think that his remarks found an echo on both sides of the House.
The hon. Member for Corby returned to a theme that I remember him raising before Christmas—atrocities in Yugoslavia. My hon. Friend the Member for Tooting spoke again, as he did before the Christmas recess, about the situation in Kashmir. I thought that his contribution to that debate was most moving, and he is doing the whole House a service by returning to the topic now, in particular in referring to the human rights violations in Kashmir. Perhaps that issue is not raised as often as it should be in the House, and my hon. Friend is right to remind us again just how serious the situation is and how many people are affected by it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South followed the hon. Member for Corby in talking about the situation in Yugoslavia, and then went on to say how deeply offended his constituents were by the pretty wide-ranging breach of election promises by the


Conservative party. He listed a large number of them, but it was not a comprehensive list by any means. The party which was committed to membership of the exchange rate mechanism, which gave a clear pledge that value added tax would not be increased and that the base would not be extended and which said it was committed to reducing direct taxation has now managed to put an extra penny on national insurance. The penny on national insurance is more regressive in its effects than a penny on income tax. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Luton, North is heckling me to say 1 per cent., which is a penny in the pound.
The 1 per cent. on national insurance is more of an advantage to the 20 per cent. of top earners than a similar increase in income tax would have been, whereas for the next 50 per cent. the position is relatively worse. And, of course, the eventual imposition of value added tax on fuel is undoubtedly the most regressive route that the Government could have taken to deal with the problem that they themselves created of the budget deficit.
I remember that before the general election—as my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South remembers—the Conservative party leaders, those running their election campaign, added all our election pledges together, put them all into the first year, rounded up the potential cost, and told the electorate that Labour would cost them £20 per week. It was not true then, and they knew that it was not true, but they alleged it. They never said anything about their costing the average family £8·50 per week.
What is perhaps most galling is that, although it was said before the election that the Labour party was the party of increased taxation, after the election the Financial Secretary, who seems to be showing increasing signs of strain, says that the Labour party has no policies for dealing with the budget deficit. It is not possible for the Conservative party to have it both ways. It is possible to allege either that we would cost everybody £20 a week, or that we would have no way of raising money to reduce the deficit, but it does not seem fair to make both points.
The hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) spoke about the red terror that had pertained there and the debt that the local authority had inherited from what he described as an eastern bloc type regime. He made it absolutely clear that massive debt was a bad thing. Of course, his remarks were addressed to the Opposition, but they should have been addressed to the Conservative party, and particularly to the Government.
The position in Basildon was obviously so bad that the hon. Gentleman decided to purchase a Hoover in the hope of getting airline tickets to flee to the United States of America, and no doubt freedom in the west. To make certain of getting his tickets, he appears to have encouraged all his relatives to purchase Hoovers so that he could be absolutely sure of being able to flee the country. I can understand his disappointment at having a collection of instruments for cleaning carpets, but no airline tickets.
However, it is a serious point and there has been widespread outrage at the way in which the offer has gone sour. It is the duty of the company that made the original promotion, although I always thought it implausible, to provide the airline tickets it had promised. I agree with the hon. Gentleman on that narrow point, though he is about to be the beneficiary of a permanent criss-crossing of the Atlantic. I suppose that that is better than his coming here and telling us about Basildon, but that depends on one's point of view.
It has been a wide-ranging debate; serious and lighter matters have been raised and there is much for the Leader of the House to respond to. When he responded to the debate before Christmas, the Leader of the House, who needs no lessons in guile, concentrated on one or two key points at considerable length and then ran out of time. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will give us a more wide-ranging and positive response to the points that my hon. Friends have raised. If he can do nothing else, perhaps I can ask him on behalf of all hon. Members to find some way of persuading the Prime Minister to answer his correspondence.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): Perhaps resent is rather a strong word for the relatively relaxed occasion such as this evening's debate when we discuss at some length whether we should have a holiday, with large numbers of hon. Members declaring their undying devotion to not having holidays and praying that the Leader of the House will not accept their representations and will withdraw the motion.
Do you want a holiday, Mr. Deputy Speaker? If I may say so, you probably deserve one more than the rest of us and certainly more than some hon. Members here today, not all of whom were here all night on the various occasions recently. May I ask whether the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) was here all night?

Mr. Mackinlay: I am lost for words.

Mr. Newton: He is one Essex man who went back to Essex. I am not sure whether to say we are pleased to see him here, but at one stage I feared that there was about to be a House of Commons punch-up between Thurrock and Basildon. Perhaps the greatest compliment to my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) was that as soon as he got to his feet, his neighbour, the hon. Member for Thurrock, came scurrying into the Chamber—no doubt to find out what stir he had been creating.
What I resented slightly was being accused of filibuster or guile to avoid answering questions. I can see what is coming down the path now, but if there is any sense of that, one of the reasons for it—I am sure that it is subconscious—is that there is no debate more calculated to produce in the person who is supposed to be answering it some sense of his own inadequacy in that he is expected to be an expert in the course of a few minutes on legal education, contraception for the young, Kashmir, raves, gipsies, international criminal courts, rural affairs, the hospitals at Altrincham and Sale, not to mention the affairs of Basildon in their various guises.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Mr. Powell), I would miss these debates. That is not to be taken as an instant reaction to his suggestions about a particular recommendation of the Jopling report, but undoubtedly they provide an opportunity for a wide range of subjects to be raised and it is a matter of interest both to the Leader of the House and to those who have the good fortune to attend the debates.
I shall say a word about the speeches in the order in which they were made. First, the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), who courteously told the House that he would not be able to be here at the


end of the debate, made a fairly general attack on the way in which agencies and Ministers had been dealing with some of the constituency cases that he had put to them.
As I said to him then and repeat now, given that he did not identify the particular cases that he raised, the only sensible course is for me to undertake to look into them or to ask my right hon. Friends to look into them and I shall do that.
I resist the right hon. Gentleman's general proposition that there is any suggestion of the introduction of agencies or that people should deal with the chief executives of agencies on matters on which they have day-to-day responsibility. There is no question of altering the fact that Ministers remain accountable to the House to deliver the services under the aegis of their Departments. Those chief executives are accountable to the Secretary of State and the Secretary of State is accountable to the House and that should be absolutely clear.
We all accept that there have been particular difficulties arising from the disability living allowance, which was the focus of many of the right hon. Gentleman's cases. That was because it was a new benefit giving hundreds of millions of pounds of additional help to hundreds of thousands of people and it proved to be a very large task to get the new system into operation in the way that people would like. Against that background, my own experience in dealing with local benefit agency people is that they give very prompt, courteous and helpful replies and that should be firmly placed on record.

Mr. Nicholas Brown: That is because the Leader of the House is a former Secretary of State.

Mr. Newton: I was the Secretary of State when the Benefits Agency was created, as I recall. Nevertheless, I am recording my experience in recent times as a Member of Parliament dealing with the benefits agencies on my own constituency cases. I gather from the reaction of my hon. Friends that they share my experience.
We heard a substantial speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery) about the saga of his hopes, first, for a district hospital and then for a community hospital in his constituency, during which I had an uneasy feeling that, quite apart from my incarnation in the Department of Social Security, I must have been Minister for Health during part of the time over which his story extended.
I do not remember specific issues coming to me at that time, but I well understand the anxieties that my hon. Friend expressed and I was glad to be told in the excellent briefing that I received during the debate that my hon. Friend is due to have a meeting with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health towards the end of April. Meanwhile, I will draw the points that he raised tonight to her attention so that she will have a good idea of the agenda for the meeting when it takes place.
My hon. Friend also made a number of points about juvenile offenders, which were echoed by a number of hon. Members. I read the story in the Daily Mail about the 14-year-old boy and I accept that considerable public concern has been expressed about some recent cases. I am sure that my hon. Friend would readily accept, however, that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary

has already acknowledged and sought to respond to that concern with the proposals that he announced in the House recently.
My hon. Friend, in common with my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle), also adverted to more recent proposals from the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for the Environment about illegal raves and illegal camping. I appreciate the concern that those activities cause and the understandable pressure for us to proceed as fast as possible to translate those proposals into legislation. I know that a number of hon. Members who are not present share that concern. I thank my hon. Friends for recognising what has been done to bring forward the proposals. In common with many others, I have had the constituency experience of illegal encampments and the upset that they can cause. I, too, am concerned that we should legislate as quickly as we reasonably can.
The hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) referred again, as he did in our debate at Christmas, to Kashmir. In a debate in which there has been endless reference to undelivered or unsent letters, the hon. Gentleman was kind enough to say that, in the wake of his speech at Christmas, he had received an extensive letter from one of the Ministers at the Foreign and Comonwealth Office. I shall do my best to ensure that his references today to Kashmir are similarly followed by some missive.
My hon. Friend the Member for Corby also made an extremely impressive speech during that Christmas debate when he expressed his concern about international war crimes. Unfortunately, he did not hear anything following that debate. I shall ensure that my hon. Friends and I do rather better for him this time and that he receives some comments on his significant request for acknowledging the importance of making progress in this respect. I noted his commendation of the Canadian Administration, who have made resources available to pave the way for the action that my hon. Friend desires.
I have passed by the remarks of the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser)—by accident, I assure him—about legal education and discretionary and mandatory grants. I should declare an interest because I have a daughter who recently graduated who is currently undertaking a course of precisely, I suspect, the kind that the hon. Gentleman described. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that Law Society finals courses are postgraduate and, as the law stands, they cannot attract a mandatory award. Although the trend of local authority expenditure on discretionary awards rose up to 1991—the latest year for which returns are available—there have been suggestions, including those contained in a survey by the College of Law to which the hon. Gentleman referred, that the number of such awards has declined. That survey, however, also revealed that almost half the students who applied for an LEA discretionary award have received some assistance. We would be wrong to exaggerate the problem and the difficulties to which the hon. Gentleman referred. Variation in provision between LEAs is bound to arise in a discretionary system that was designed to provide a degree of flexibility. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Department for Education is monitoring the situation carefully. I shall ensure, however, that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has his attention drawn to the hon. Gentleman's remarks.
The hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) set out to raise the political temperature, as did his hon.


Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown), rather higher than I think is appropriate in a debate of this kind. The hon. Member for Leicester, South tempted me—the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East even more so—to provide a full list of all the excellent things that have happened on this very day, 1 April 1993. Today is the day on which our community care reforms come into effect, aided by £565 million of ring-fenced money; 139 new NHS trusts become operational; the number of doctors in fund-holding practices has doubled to 6,000; the council tax has come into effect to provide a much fairer basis either than the rates or the community charge for raising local revenue; 155 more schools have become grant maintained; and all 480 further education and sixth-form colleges, including some very good institutions in my constituency, have become independent of local authority control.
Without attempting to mix it with those hon. Gentlemen, I am not prepared to listen to their suggestions that this has been other than a period in which much fruitful activity has been undertaken which will benefit people.

Mr. Nicholas Brown: rose—

Mr. Newton: If the hon. Gentleman intervenes he will prevent me from saying anything else.

Mr. Brown: Having heard the right hon. Gentleman's list, I acquit him of the charge of populism and wish him a happy Easter.

Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman can do what he likes, but I can tell him that there is widespread support throughout the country for each and every one of the developments to which I have referred. The very fact that he felt it right to intervene with such a comment shows how out of touch the Opposition are with what people want. Even after nearly 14 years in office, it is the Conservative party that is setting the real agenda for political debate.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House, at its rising tomorrow, do adjourn until Wednesday 14th April and, at its rising on Friday 30th April, do adjourn until Tuesday 4th May.

Orders of the Day — Television (Violence)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]

Mr. Jim Callaghan: It is a great pleasure to raise once again the important subject of violence on television.
Last month, the Prime Minister warned of the serious effects on the young of a
relentless diet of screen violence".
Following his expression of concern, the Home Secretary urged television companies to show greater responsibility by reducing the "diet of violence" on British screens. He said:
Graphic scenes of brutality and killing have a direct effect on young people and are partly responsible for the upsurge in violence in society … I think young people—all of us—become accustomed to watching violence as entertainment.
Last month, the Secretary of State for Health, said at a conference organised by the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children:
A television diet of sex and violence can have a pernicious effect on children. There is undoubtedly a role for the Government to regulate what is broadcast, but parents also have a responsibility to establish the limits beyond which their children should not tread.
The right hon.Lady urged parents to instill the three Rs—responsibility, respect and right from wrong—in their children. In many debates I find myself in total agreement with Mrs. Bottomley—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but he must refer to the Secretary of State as "the right hon. Lady", and to other Ministers as "the right hon. Gentleman" or "right hon. Lady".

Mr. Callaghan: I beg your pardon, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I did not mean to be disrespectful in any way—just the reverse: I was praising the right hon. Lady. I beg both her pardon and your pardon.
Following the concern about television violence expressed by the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Health, it was announced that a two-week survey into violence on television would be undertaken by the regulatory body for commercial television, commencing on 24 March 1993. The output of ITV, Channel 4 and Sky will be monitored between 6 pm and midnight during that period. I welcome that survey, even though it is short.
Also reacting to the Prime Minister's warning of the serious effects on the young of screen violence, Mr. Yentob, the newly appointed BBC controller, pledged that the BBC would exercise
more care and scrutiny to ensure that we understand the public sentiment and the public climate.
I welcome his statement. He also said:
I don't think in the end you can just defer the responsibility entirely on the broadcaster.
I agree with him.
When asked about the problem of children being able to tape programmes screened after the 9 pm adult viewing watershed, he said:
In the end, you can't avoid parental responsibility".
He said that he was unconvinced of a direct causal link between violence on television and copy-cat crime on the streets.
In the same month, March, when Ministers expressed their concern about violence on screen, Sir Anthony Hopkins, the famous British actor and star of the film, "Silence of the Lambs", announced on 5 March 1993 that he may pull out of the film's sequel. He said that he was alarmed at the popularity of the cannibalistic Hannibal Lecter, the film's principal character. Sir Anthony is reported as saying:
We are living in an age of such horrors and there are such terrifying films coming out, that I think it may be time to say enough is enough.
I welcome that statement, and I welcome Michael Medred's new book, "Hollywood Vs America". His basic message is that Hollywood the American dream factory has become Hollywood the American nightmare factory. He charges that the Hollywood moguls of popular culture are foisting a torrent of violence and repulsive work on a public who want to cling on to old moral values. Although his book is about America, its implications for this country are self-evident. I have no doubt that the fat cats who are raking in the profits from each more audaciously violent movie, video or recording will continue to do so despite the criticisms in Mr. Medred's book.
The issue of violence on television is not new: it has been raised many times, both inside and outside the House. The right hon. and learned Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor), when he was a Minister, replying to a debate on young people and violent crime on 6 December 1985, said:
Several hon. Members referred to concern about violence on television and its impact. Like so many of those matters, it is not easy to determine what that impact is. Many think—I am one of them—that we are entitled to rely on common sense, and common sense must lead us to suspect that the constant diet of violence, particularly for young and impressionable minds, leads to some desensitisation, and … can encourage people to go out and engage in violence. It can create the impression that violence is a normal response to everyday problems in society.
We must also look at what research tells us. Again, the message is not entirely clear, but there is no doubt that the overall conclusion is that, despite extensive studies, it is not possible to demonstrate that films on television do or do not exercise a socially harmful influence."—[Official Report, 6 December 1985; Vol. 88, c. 585.]
The subject is not a new one, and I may be asked why I am once again raising it on the Floor of the House. The comments of Ministers and Sir Anthony Hopkins led me to do so. Having viewed television programmes in various countries, I am convinced that those produced here are the best in the world. When I am abroad, I cannot wait to get back to look at our television. However, that does not mean that our programmes cannot be improved, as I am sure the broadcasting authorities would agree.
I became seriously concerned about violence on television and its effect on the very young when, two or three years ago, the world's press was focused on my constituency because of the alleged satanic abuse of children in the area. It was the word "satanic" that drew the attention of the press. The social services department in the Rochdale district had taken several children into care when they and their teachers in a local school became concerned about the strange behaviour of a disturbed child in the school. The boy was screaming, hiding in cupboards and talking about ghosts. The social workers and teachers

were convinced that the child and those with whom he associated had been subjected to satanic abuse, so he was taken into care.
It was stated at the subsequent court case that the child, aged about six, had been allowed by his parents to watch horror videos such as "Nightmare on Elm Street" until 1 am. It is no wonder that the child, who was only six, was disturbed and screamed and hid in cupboards. The social workers were criticised in court because they had not followed the procedures laid down in the Butler-Sloss recommendations following the Cleveland case. If the social workers had done so, the case would not have come to court. There are many lessons to be learned about the behaviour of irresponsible parents, videos and codes of practice from that case in my constituency.
A Sunday Mirror survey taken in March this year confirms my fears about the use of videos by children, as did the case in my constituency. It found that half the children under the age of 16 had television sets in their bedrooms, and their parents had little idea what they watched or how late they did so, as they lay in bed videoing and replaying what they liked.
I am convinced that we need to tighten our laws on videos, even though the Video Recordings Act 1984 gave powers to control what is shown on screen. Sadly, some video nasties are still available under the counter, and some companies still put out videos that have never been submitted to the British Board of Film Classification, including videos with material that should not be available in any civilised society.
Therefore, I welcome Lord Birkett's Bill in the other place, which aims to tighten up the enforcement laws on videos. It will give trading standards officers power not only to seize illegal videos but to pursue their manufacturers. I hope that the Government will support that amendment. I also welcome the survey commissioned by the British Board of Film Classification a week ago to investigate the viewing habits of juvenile offenders. The survey also has the backing of the BBC, ITV and the Broadcasting Standards Council.
The problem is not new. In the late 1950s, the BBC issued a code on violence in programmes, a code that was periodically reviewed and extended. The Sims committee, chaired by Monica Sims, head of children's programmes, television, and later controller of Radio 4, drew up guidelines in 1979. It included in its recommendations the need to review and revise the guidelines at least every five years. The first review by a committee of programme heads took place in 1983.
In December 1985, the managing director of television asked a Mr. Wyatt, head of documentary features, to chair an internal BBC committee to review the BBC guidelines on the portrayal of violence on television and to consider their effectiveness, although at that time there was no sign that viewers had suddenly become more worried about violence on television. It came about because the BBC had monitored public responses to television.
The committee began by looking at existing guidelines. Those had stood the test of time, although the principles remained constant, the considerations relevant and the dangers well described. Some key issues emerged as the committee went about its work. The first was the complexity of the decisions made and the inadequacy of any simplistic solutions—there can be no simplistic solutions. The second was the concern for the totality of violence on television and its possible cumulative effect,


rather than concern about individual incidents. The third was the importance of informing viewers by accurately labelling programmes, and the fourth the need to define the BBC's responsibilities. ITV has a similar code.
The committee then set up a series of seminars for producers to discuss the existing guidelines, to give their views on violence on television and to make suggestions. It asked members of the committee to prepare papers on news, drama and purchased programmes—the sectors that caused most concern. It met the director of the BBFC, looked at the classification system used by cable operators and obtained details of guidelines used by other European broadcasters.
The role of the British Broadcasting Standards Council, which came into being in 1988, is to monitor the portrayal of violence and sex and matters of taste and decency, to report on them, to undertake research and to adjudicate on complaints from the public. The BBC's constitution is set out in the royal charter and licence and agreement of 1981. It recognises a duty that, as far as possible,
programmes should not offend against good taste or decency or be likely to encourage crime and disorder or be offensive to public feeling.
Despite all those safeguards, mistakes can be, and are, made. I deeply regret the decision made by Channel 4 to screen an interview with Aileen Wuornos, an American serial killer who murdered seven men. I regret the decision of Central TV to screen a programme in which the mass murderer Dennis Nilsen was interviewed. However, no amount of legislation can ever ensure that creative staff will never make mistakes.
Besides keeping to the codes of practice, producers must be sensitive to outside opinion and take part in a dialogue with the audience about what is truthful, honest, necessary and appropriate to show. Television is a powerful and influential medium and any powerful tool needs careful handling. There can be no simple solution to the problem. Television programme makers must regularly re-examine what they are doing and their relationship with the public. They must be questioned, and must question themselves, about what they transmit and when.
Most worrying of all is the argument that television is blunting our sensibilities, that viewers, especially the young, are growing used to a world in which death comes cheaply, and violence is the way to solve problems. That is the "drip, drip" argument. What is at fault may not be the individual programmes, scenes or times but the accumulation of such items. It is prudent for broadcasters to work on the assumption that, to some extent, for some people, for some of the time, television may promote violence. That is not to say that television is a leading cause of violence. It may reflect it, it may exaggerate it, but violence is in people, and there is enough violence in human history for us to know that television's role may be tiny.
Television has much to be proud of, particularly in this country. The response to the Ethiopian appeals, Live Aid, "Children in Need" and "Drugwatch" show that people are sensitive as never before to the hardships and unhappiness of others, especially children. Much of the credit must go to television. Credit must also be given to its role as a provider of information and to the pleasure that it brings in entertainment, particularly to the lonely, the isolated arid the sick.
Broadcasters must take care about violence, about the overall picture of the world they present, and must ensure that they find a proper place for values other than the aggressive, the cynical and opportunistic. The programme makers' job is to think through their material and respect the audience. They can then seek new ways to exploit television's awesome ability to transmit to millions the humanity of others, to show us something of what it is like to be another human being.

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I congratulate the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Mr. Callaghan) on presenting this complex subject in such a straightforward way and on not coming forward with the simple, easy solution in which some people believe—censorship. We want to encourage responsibility both in the media and the family. I agreed with much of what the hon. Gentleman said.
One of the difficulties that we have to face up to is the reluctance of some in the media to accept that there is any relationship between violence and what we see on the screen, be it the big screen at the movie, or its translation into video, which we then see on television, or the original creative work of television. The hon. Gentleman quoted a much-respected figure from television, who has great experience of television—Mr. Alan Yentob. He does not accept, according to the hon. Gentleman, that there is a relationship. In one respect he is right. No one has proved that there is a casual relationship, a point to which I shall return later.
The hon. Gentleman reflects a view that I accepted myself when I worked in television because I wanted the freedom that all producers and interviewers seek when they carry out their responsibilities.
Alan Yentob was recently reported as saying:
I think we have real responsibilities … to try to make programmes that reflect the world as it is".
A comment on that was contained in a letter to The Times which said:
It might be to the benefit of us all if the BBC screened a greater proportion of programmes showing the more civilised aspects of our society and the need to aspire to an improved moral climate.
That is an important point. Some of us recognise that there is some relationship between the media and public taste.
On the same day, in another letter in The Times, Mr. Waddington, director of criminal justice studies at the department of sociology at the university of Reading, referred to the question whether the impact of media violence on crime is as serious as some people make out. He concluded:
If a link is not established, then mere entertainment might be needlessly restricted. If, on the other hand, there is a link which the ingenuity of researchers has yet to establish, the consequences of brutalisation might be calamitous. Given this asymmetry, prudence surely demands that the diet of media violence should be curtailed.
The hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton quoted reports which appeared in The Sunday Times by Michael Medved, who made a brilliant, cruel analysis of some of the products of Hollywood in recent times. Who can deny that in recent years we have seen an increasing diet1 of media violence?
The hon. Gentleman referred to a quote concerning Sir Anthony Hopkins, who, in 1991, was one of those nominated best actor of the year. Mr. Medved said that, of the five men nominated for the best actor award, three


played deranged and sadistic killers—Sir Anthony Hopkins in "Silence of the Lambs", Warren Beatty in "Bugsy" and Robert de Niro in "Cape Fear". Shortly before the release of "Bugsy", the screen writer James Toback said:
It is a portrait of a tremendously charming sex and violence obsessed quasi-madman who is infatuated with creation and death. People are going to be astounded by Warren Beatty. He is a complete psycho.
Those are extreme cases, but they are role models for others that we have seen in movies which have come on to the screen through the video. We have seen other cheaper, not quite so tawdry, but pretty tawdry, imitations on the box.
My interest in the matter stems not from my involvement in the BBC or from having been a director of a commercial television company; it goes further back to a time when I sat on a committee which considered violence on television. It goes back some 15 years when I was a member of a working party of the IBA which considered the current code on violence. We came to the conclusion that, in general, it was a useful guide to producers. Since then, various changes have been made by the BBC and the IBA.
We thought that the code on violence recognised the need for some form of introduction which would stress that, while evidence of a connection between televised and social violence is conflicting, the possibility of such a connection must remain an area of continuing concern for all broadcasters.
We made other comments about certain modes of behaviour as portrayed on television as admirable, but we noted that, even in those days in 1978, there had been an escalation in the degree of violent realism employed, the difference being that the realism of television is far greater than that of Shakespeare and the classic Greek dramas where much of the violent action is off stage. In any case, I shall be deliberately elitist and say that the thinking behind such productions is of a somewhat higher standard, not to mention the language.
On television we have increasingly seen the use of the hand-held camera, tape and the light, easy-to-handle mobile camera which allows the depiction of fictional scenes in horrific realistic terms and that has an effect.
When we considered the code in 1978 we said that there was no evidence that the portrayal of violence for good or legitimate ends was likely to be less harmful to the individual or society than the portrayal of violence for evil ends. We thought that there was no evidence that sanitised or conventional violence, in which the consequences are concealed, minimised or presented in a ritualistic way is innocuous. We also recognised that dramatic truth may occasionally demand the portrayal of a sadistic character.
However, we strongly objected to ingenious and unfamiliar methods of inflicting pain or injury, particularly if capable of easy imitation. We thought that if such portrayals were to be shown they should first have the most careful consideration. We discussed and made recommendations on other matters such as children's cartoons, and so on, and we did not think that, on balance, they did much harm.
However, we were to some extent influenced, and as time has gone by I have become more influenced, by research by Dr. William A. Belson published in a book

entitled "Television Violence and the Adolescent Boy" in late 1978. I do not know what Dr. Belson is now, but he was then a reader in research methods at North East London polytechnic, a consultant in the techniques of social and business research and a fellow of the British Psychological Society. This research was funded by the Columbia Broadcasting System.
We considered some of Dr. Belson's evidence, but, since then, I have studied it a little more carefully. His most noteworthy conclusions were that
high exposure to television violence increases the degree to which boys"—
he is specifically referring to boys in the East End who were his subjects—
engage in serious violence".
On the evidence of the inquiry he adumbrated five types of television violence which appeared to be the more potent in releasing serious violence by boys. It is important that he concentrated on boys because on the whole, though not exclusively because there is an increasing trend towards violence among young girls, it is the young man who is the most violent member of the human race in modern society.
Mr. Belson said that the more potent types of television violence in releasing serious violence by boys were:

"(a) plays or films in which violence occurs in the context of close personal relations;
(b) violent programmes in which the violence appears to have been 'just thrown in for its own sake' …
(c) programmes presenting fictional violence of a realistic kind;
(d) programmes in which the violence is presented as being in a good cause;
(e) Westerns of the violent kind."

He added:
By contrast, there was but little or no support for the hypotheses that exposure to the following kinds of programme output increases serious violence by boys.

(a) sporting programmes presenting violent behaviour …
(b) violent cartoons including Tom and Jerry;
(c) science fiction violence;
(d) slapstick comedy presenting violence or verbal abuse."

Looking at the book afresh, that appears to me to amount to a lot of common sense. Mr. Belson wondered what could be done about such violence and that is the problem that we face; it certainly is for me because, as I said earlier, I do not advocate censorship, unless we are talking about video nasties, on which we have already had legislation. It may be that the tightening of the controls will be enough. As the hon. Gentleman said, such legislation has been debated in the other place. If one reads between the lines of a recent article in the Daily Mail by James Furman, director of the British Board of Film Classification, and of an interview that he gave to another newspaper, I would not be surprised if he would not have to buy and willingly buy a system of video nasties censorship. If I am wrong, and if I have maligned Mr. Furman, I regret it—and I am sure that he will find an opportunity to correct any false impression that I may have given.
We must accept, both in movies that are shown on television and in some television programmes, that there is a cheapening of human values. There is a nasty kind of violence. I take that seriously and Mr. Belson's research is still important and significant. He believes that we should cut the violence presented on television. He states that the necessary reduction in the amount of violence is


significant. One cannot do without it altogether because many important matters, plots and stories depend on violence. He added:
As far as serious violence in concerned, there is a well-supported case for a major reduction in the total amount of violence shown on television.
At the same time … the cut-back in television violence does not have necessarily to be complete, for the increase in serious violence by boys does not appear to occur until the accumulated input has gone beyond a certain level. In other words, there appears to be scope for the presentation of a certain amount of violence without the production of serious violence in boy viewers.
However, if we are interested in reducing the degree to which television stimulates the relatively non-serious forms of violence in boys, then the cut-back in television violence would have to be very drastic indeed".
I guess that would go too far for most of us.
As to the kind of violence most necessary to eliminate, he remarked
If the amount of television violence is to be reduced, then one has to decide upon criteria for reducing it. At a purely commonsense level, this should not be difficult once production staff accept television violence first and foremost as potentially damaging rather than regarding it principally as potential entertainment.
I agree with that.

Mr. Roger Gale: I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Mr. Callaghan) on choosing to raise a matter of particular interest to, and within the personal experience of, most of our constituents.
I spent the greater part of my professional career working in the mechanical media—as a sound broadcaster, radio producer, and television producer and director. It is a sad fact that over the years that I have been associated with the industry, I have watched and heard standards—particularly of language—decline. Many right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House are concerned about bad language, explicit sex and, above all, explicit violence on television and video and, to a lesser extent, on radio.
My personal concern is not individual programmes but the cumulative effect of a saturation assault on the senses of the audience. Some will argue that for a normal viewer—whatever or whoever that may be—exposure to a nightly diet of verbal and visual abuse that is the stuff of current programming has little or no long-term adverse effect. I cannot accept that. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith), I cannot believe that advertisers pay hundreds of thousands of pounds annually creating and broadcasting advertisements for the specific and powerful purpose of altering people's purchasing habits, and that right hon. and hon. Members vie for air time to alter the public's political thinking, but that what is seen on news programmes, in documentaries and in drama does not have a similar, brain-washing and perhaps brain-curdling effect.
Can any right hon. or hon. Member put hand on heart and say that reports of IRA atrocities in Northern Ireland or closer to home, on the mainland, and even such terrible events as the Warrington bombing and the sad and grim funerals that followed still have the same impact as those first reported far too many murdering years ago?
Is it not a fact that all our senses, not just those of the young and still innocent, are dulled by the grim repetition of death universally that we see reported night after night

from the four corners of the earth? Do reports of war or famine in Somalia or Bosnia tear at the heart strings and purse strings in the way that Jonathan Dimbleby's first reports from Ethiopia did many years ago?
If the answer to those questions is no, is that because the human mind can only take so much of a battering of violence and that, as a result of relentless repetition, even the most sensitive and responsive have become inured to human suffering?
I have dealt so far only with events that one would expect to see on our screens, hear about on our radios, and read about in our newspapers. We must acknowledge, however, that modern technology has made the graphic reporting of war, pestilence and death more immediate and has brought them into the heart of our homes in a way that was not possible only a few years ago. For good or ill, that progress is irreversible. Today's children are subjected to far more scenes of death and violence on television than anything that most of us experienced in our own childhood.
We are compounding that quota of grim viewing by adding, under the guise of entertainment, still more scenes of violence and death. My wife and I try hard to monitor our 12-year-old son's viewing and to ensure that the programmes that he watches are suited to the capacities, sensitivities and tolerances of a young, active, inquiring and impressionable mind. However, all too frequently we discover that well before the much-vaunted threshold, material is broadcast that at least I find unacceptable because of its language and violent content.
There is no denying that my son and his young friends like blood-and-thunder films or that they revel in the more brutal action crime series, and the like. It is often argued, with some justification, that children are bloodthirsty little people by nature and that they have always been so. After all, the Punch and Judy shows that many of us enjoyed in the past are not the most peaceful of theatricals. There is, however, a world of difference between the Punch and Judy professor and the fictional and fantasy warmongers of, for example, "Dr. Who" and the much more realistic and foul-mouthed villains of today's television series and dramas.
I will not rehearse a litany of titles. Suffice it to say that on any given evening a family household is unlikely to be deprived of the dubious pleasure of finding on one channel or another, usually well within peak viewing time, something to satisfy any likely craving for televisual aggression. Were too peaceful an evening to occur, the video shop that is seemingly just around every corner is open all hours to offer lurid titles of extremely dubious pedigree.
We have supplemented the available domestic television services with a growing number of satellite channels. I make it clear immediately that I support the development of satellite and cable services and that I see great potential in the future of transfrontier broadcasting. We must, however, recognise that, as with any new technology, there is potential for good and for ill.
We have seen the potential for good in satellite news services and in sports and children's channels that are capable of delivering a variety of information, enjoyment and entertainment from Europe and the rest of the world. Few would deny that satellite coverage of the Olympics or, sparing recent performances, of Test cricket from halfway around the globe has not brought pleasure to millions of sports fans.
Nor can there be much doubt that coverage of famine in Somalia, war in the Gulf, or privation in the former Yugoslavia—however gruelling—has brought home the plight of human souls in other parts of the world with a vivid immediacy that has had a profound effect on international political response to those needs.
The potential for exchanges of culture—music, films, theatre and education—are immense. The sheer capacity of satellite transmission makes it possible to devote whole channels to, for example, religion, education or sport—or to hard-core pornography: that is the darker side of this most powerful of media. The launch of the Red Hot television service has, at least temporarily, driven a coach and horses through our domestic regulatory framework.
I am not one of the world's natural censors. In my time as a programme maker I pushed at the frontiers of some people's taste and, as a result, found myself answerable to the regulatory authorities. I do not want to curtail the creative and genuinely artistic expression of young producers and directors, even if they sometimes make what we may regard as errors of judgment. However, I defy any but the most brutalised to find any creative merit in a wall-to-wall diet of hard-core pornography of the kind that provides the sole format of the Red Hot service. I shall spare the House a blow-by-blow account of the channel's output; suffice it to say that the scripts are not the most inventive that I have had the dubious privilege of experiencing.
I concede that such material is available for open-channel daytime viewing in many hotels throughout mainland Europe; it is also true that hard-core pornography is broadcast by some European services—Canal Plus in France, for example—as part of a balanced programme. As far as I am aware, however, Red Hot is the only channel in the European Community that is dedicated exclusively to the transmission of hard-core explicit sexual activity. Let me make it clear that I am not talking about the television equivalent of top-shelf girlie magazines; the channel portrays much more than natural explicit sex. At least one of the three clips that I saw had heavy overtones of sado-masochism.
I think it inevitable that, if such a service is allowed to continue, its client audience will demand ever more extreme and revolting material. Should that be in any doubt, as one of those who visited and were sickened by the exhibition mounted in the House by the obscene publications squad, I am in a position to say that films featuring extreme sexual violence and paedophilia are all too readily available. The latter is now being transmitted not only through the post in the form of still pictures and on videotape, but by computer link—in which form it appears to be outside the law.
We are told that the Red Hot films are shown only to consenting subscribers who have bought the necessary decoding equipment, and that they are only shown late at night. I concede that that is correct. If transmitted within the United Kingdom, however, the channel would not receive a broadcast licence; and its films, if seized by customs on their entry into the United Kingdom on videotape, would without doubt lead to prosecution. One need not be a genius to work out that, given the ease with

which films can now be recorded off air and copied, the growth in cottage industries supplying hard-core videotapes is likely to be considerable.
That recording facility also makes it inevitable that, while the source material may be encrypted, children are likely to be able to see films that are, by any sensible standards, highly unsuitable even for adult viewing. One of my constituents complained recently that her children—on whom she keeps a watchful parental eye—had come back after playing with friends whom she had regarded as perfectly respectable, using bad language and describing scenes that they had witnessed on a videotape that they had been allowed to watch in someone else's house.
For all those reasons, I—together with many colleagues on both sides of the House—have pressed for Government action to end the Red Hot television service and other channels like it. I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister and our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the recent announcement of their intention to try to proscribe the channel; I hope and believe that they will be successful should the matter come before the European courts.
I believe that a great deal is at stake. If we are not able to regulate what is broadcast to the United Kingdom by satellite—however abhorrent that material may be—not only will more channels spring up, but pressure will grow for still more deregulation of our domestic television service. Whatever lack of proof the experts may claim for any link between at least some of society's ills and the prevalence of gratuitous violence, bad language and explicit sex on television, common sense tells me that the decline in standards can and does affect the behaviour and attitudes not just of young people but of all of us.
I believe that not only the Prime Minister, the Cabinet, the House of Commons and even society but the programme makers themselves are coming to recognise that great scrutiny needs to be given to scripts and pictures to justify what is shown on the screen. At such a time, it would be a sad and dreadful irony if through transfrontier broadcasting, which may yet offer humanity so much, the floodgates were opened to a tide of filth and violence.

Ms Glenda Jackson: I join others in congratulating all who have spoken on the seriousness and depth of their speeches. My contribution will be very short.
Like other hon. Members, I am entirely opposed to the idea of censorship; equally, I believe that we must protect our children from the worst excesses of any possible medium. I do not wish to touch on what I regard as a separate issue—that of hard-core pornography—but I shall speak about the general diet of television, which other hon. Members have described as becoming increasingly violent, and about the lowering of standards.
My main point is this. I think it entirely wrong for society to blame one aspect for all its ills. The problem with television is that, because competition has become increasingly fierce and because the possibility of revenues from advertising, for example, has become smaller and smaller, programme makers are under incredible pressure to limit the amount of programme time between advertisements. In my experience of playing in live theatre, what has become increasingly noticeable over the past few years is audiences' inability to sustain concentration, and


to equate conflicting points of view, for any longer than would, in domestic terms, constitute the time before the first commercial break.
At present, pressures on the medium itself mean that pressures on the programme makers who are at the behest of ratings—because if the ratings are not high enough, the possibility of selling their programmes with sufficient advertising space becomes increasingly small—are becoming stronger and stronger. Many years ago, I had a conversation with the vice-president responsible for daytime television programming. When I asked him why television in America was so appalling, he said, "You misunderstand the nature of the medium. Television is not about entertainment; it is a marketplace." That is what we are suffering from here, because of deregulation. The pressure on programme makers is not to make quality programmes, but to sandwich advertisements.
If we, as people, are being programmed to sustain and concentrate on smaller and smaller pieces of programmes, our requirement to be stimulated to watch beyond the next advertising break—to pick up the programme again—means that programme makers are continually leaving us on the edge of a cliff. That is their whole purpose: they must retain us beyond the commercial break, because if we are not there, the next commercial break will not be there the next time around.
The decay in television has come about because what was a great bulwark against cheapening pressures—the security that the industry as a whole could place in the solidity of the BBC, which, at that time, was not under commercial pressure—is being eroded. That has happened in America. It is a model for what television will become in the rest of the world.
I agree absolutely that there are unacceptable programmes and that not everybody exercises the right kind of control over their children's viewing, but it would be entirely wrong to blame television for the increase in violence or for the decay in our moral standards.

Mr. Robin Corbett: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Mr. Callaghan) on his choice of topic and in particular on the impeccable timing of the debate that he has won.
As the House heard from those who have contributed to this short debate, there is continuing concern about violence on the screens in our homes—not least, I suspect, because of still-rising levels of crime which cause growing concern among the public and a demand for more effective action to prevent and combat it. It is important, however, as the hon. Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) said, to put concerns about television violence in context. It is the purpose for which it is portrayed—its nature and quality—which matters. Violence is an integral part of, for example, many of Shakespeare's plays, reflecting the violent times in which the events described are set, so Shakespeare's violence is in context—a dark part of those times—and not violence simply for the sake of it.
Concern among viewers about violence is remarkably even across the years. That is no surprise perhaps, for people react differently to the same circumstances. In its recent survey, the Independent Television Commission's "Television: The Public's View" records that 70 out of every 100 viewers of commercial television found nothing

offensive about programmes, with 72 out of every 100 saying the same about Channel 4, but 11 out of every 100 viewers cited violence as a source of offence. Unfortunately, these complaints are not broken down into programme strands, so we do not know whether it was the harrowing scenes of violence from the former Yugoslavia in news bulletins or the violence in drama or works of fiction that caused offence.
As David Glencross, the distinguished chief executive of the ITC, comments:
What we are seeing is a public revulsion against violence in society which is feeding through to a desire for greater sensitivity by television programme-makers and makers of films and videos.
He added:
Members of the Commission expect programme-makers and TV companies to take full account of that concern.
As my hon. Friend and others acknowledge, there is no evidence to sustain any charge that our screens are awash with violence, or that programme makers and television companies are indifferent to public concerns, but in no way should that lead to complacency. The broadcasters need to continue to demonstrate that they both acknowledge and respond to public concern over violence on our screens.
The broadcasting industry has more regulation and codes of practice than any other part of the media. I might add that, had the newspapers taken more account of them, they might now be held in higher esteem. The BBC's producers' guidelines are a good example. A section on violence in programmes opens this way:
There is much confusing and inconclusive research into violence on television and society. While it may not be possible to establish the nature of any relationship, it is prudent to assume there may be one.
No one can properly criticise that approach. It is one which is matched by other broadcasters and the regulators.
The Broadcasting Standards Council—no one's favourite body—offers an important warning in its code of practice. It says:
There is an initial distinction to be made between reporting and reflection in programmes of real-life violence and the use of violent actions as elements in entertainment programmes.
The BSC published a monograph called "A measure of uncertainty: the effects of the mass media" by Dr. Guy Cumberbatch, director of the communications research group at Birmingham's Aston university, and Dr. Dennis Howitt, senior lecturer in social psychology at Loughborough university. They conclude:
The facts surrounding the debate"—
the debate on how the media affects people—
are impressive: over the past 10 years, 2,000 studies have scrutinised the impact of the media and 1,000 projects have researched the relationship between television and violence. What we don't know (about the effects of the media) is probably more important than what we do know.
That reflects the sensible caution in the BBC producers' guidelines.
The ITC survey also tells us—a point that was made by the hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale)—that more people, watching the commercial channels and the two BBC channels, are more offended by bad language than violence—that 17 out of every 100 ITV viewers find bad language to be more of a reason to complain, that 14 out of every 100 BBC1 viewers feel the same, and that that number falls to 11 out of every 100 BBC2 viewers.
The British Film Institute has published a book called "Women Viewing Violence", based on research commissioned by the BSC and carried out among women who had had direct experience of violence and those who had not. The book's authors refer to
women's concern that televised violence against women be portrayed realistically and sensitively and used to effect some postive outcome, such as public education or crime prevention".
It might have been expected that women—especially those who had themselves been victims of violence—would be more strongly against the portrayal of violence in any form than men, but the finding suggests that they accept it as a fact and as an unpleasant part of life. If it is to be done, they want it to be done in a realistic manner.

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: The implication of the research is that violence does not worry people nearly so much as does bad language in the form of expletives. In some programmes, language can be extremely violent in another way, and much more frightening. With regard to women, my concern has more to do with the more realistic, sadistic violence that is portrayed in movies, which are then produced in video form and thrown in to our homes.

Mr. Corbett: I accept that absolutely. As with much of this research, one does not know exactly which programmes are being looked at. In any event, bad language and realistic violence often go together. The distinction is perhaps not wholly sensible.
Most concern among viewers is caused by films and videos that are strong on gratuitous violence—what I shall call the Michael Winner effect. I took particular exception to Winner's "Death Wish", as it seemed to me that its sole purpose was to smother the screen with as much blood and gore as Charles Bronson could achieve. Then, to raise a bit more cash from this exploitation of violence, came "Death Wish II". More recently, the Independent Television Commission has expressed concern about real crimes that become the subjects of drama documentaries such as "Suspicious Circumstances" and Michael Winner's "True Crimes" and "Crime Story".
It is interesting that when Clint Eastwood—himself no stranger to screen violence—collected this week his two Oscars for his film "The Unforgiven", he argued strongly that it is not a violent film, as violence is used to overcome greater violence. That is another concept, and I have to confess to having seen "The Dirty Dozen" and "The Magnificent Seven" many times on the same grounds.
The jury is out on the question whether rising crime in our daily lives is simply reflected in what we see on television or whether what we see on television, in some way and among some people, helps to encourage crime. But we should also remember that the people of this country lived in times more violent even than these, a century or more ago, when television had not been invented. Certainly there is a need for more and continuing research into the effect of the portrayal of violence in news, drama, fiction and other television programme strands, not least for its possible impact on young and forming minds. It may well be a question which can never be completely answered, but all of us, including the programme makers, have a strong duty to ensure that proper sensitivity is always shown in the portrayal of violence on television and in films and videos.
I confess to doubts about the impact of what is shown on our screens on those who watch it. There must be some effect, or advertisers would not spend millions of pounds with ITV and Channel 4 trying to persuade us to buy their products. But again, the success of advertisements may have more to do with the way in which they are done for the purpose of achieving what is wanted by those paying for them. As Dr. Cumberbatch and Dr. Howitt observe,
research which has examined audiences is rarely able to demonstrate clear effects of the mass media.
They also make a further contribution to this complicated debate. They state that
market forces inevitably mean that the media cannot stray too far from audience interest
and that the perceived problems are caused not by television alone but by many factors, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) said. They add:
Isolating the unique contribution that television makes to problems such as racism and sexism, which are deeply embedded in our cultures, is exceedingly difficult.
Perhaps we should give the last word to Mr. John Birt, the director general of the BBC, who, in his Fleming memorial lecture to the Royal Television Society this week, gave this pledge:
We can ensure that our programmes do not promote … cruelty and violence. We will do nothing to encourage anyone to think there is kudos or status to be earned by inflicting pain and damage to another human being.
I hope that that pledge will be endorsed by all other programme makers and broadcasters.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mr. Robert Key): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Mr. Callaghan) for giving the House an opportunity to consider this important issue. I congratulate him on the way that he opened the debate. His contribution has been followed by a number of thoughtful and well informed speeches, but he started the ball rolling, and our thanks are due to him. All my comments will bear on what he said. I have known of his sensitive approach to the subject since I served with him some years ago on the Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts. His interest is of long standing.
I know from the correspondence that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have received that the issue of broadcasting standards troubles many people. My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) made a speech born of great experience; it was also the speech of a father. He mentioned Red Hot Television. I can say only that it has been granted leave to apply for judicial review. We believe our position to be correct, and we shall defend our action vigorously. The matter is now before the courts, and I know that my hon. Friend will understand if I do not comment further at this stage.
Violence on the news has also been mentioned. It is a subject that alarms many parents, who believe that even the "Six O'Clock News" and earlier news broadcasts can sometimes be very frightening and can make a deep impression. I am drawn to the BBC producers' guidelines on real life violence in the news:
There is a balance to be struck between the demands of truth and the danger of desensitising the audience. With some news stories a sense of shock is part of a full understanding of what has happened. But the more often viewers are shocked, the more it will take to shock them.


That is the type of detailed guidance which the BBC gives to producers and which the ITC gives to other television companies. It would be wrong to assume that everyone who works in television is dedicated to the pursuit of violence. I know that that is not the case, and I do not believe that any hon. Member or anyone outside the House thinks it is.
I am also grateful for the contribution made by the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) in a speech also born of great experience of working in a number of media. I do not blame television for all our ills, any more than I blame politicians or teachers, who seem to be the other whipping boys or girls. She said that there was pressure—not only commercial pressure—on programme makers from many quarters.
If I could introduce a lighter note to our proceedings, I must say that I have always thought that, however boring a programme, it is almost worth waiting for the adverts, which tend to be of a higher standard and which, if I am not mistaken, are a rather important source of revenue for actors who are otherwise resting. We should not simply dismiss the art form of advertisements, of which I am quite fond.
I also do not quite agree with the hon. Lady that commercial pressure always leads to lower quality. In fact, one could argue the reverse. A number of commercial enterprises on television have led to very high standards. One thinks, for example, of Channel 4's involvement in commissioning films, not least its involvement with "Howard's End". There are many examples of good, too, coming out of commercial pressure. Nevertheless, I take the hon. Lady's point.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington. (Mr. Corbett) made a thoughtful speech, which stole many of my best lines—not, I dare say, for the last time, although I shall always seek to be there ahead of him. He, too, talked about the problem of violence and the contradiction involving the use of television as a powerful advertising medium. The argument is that, if television is powerful enough to attract enormous amounts of money as an advertising medium, we cannot at the same time be told that it does not affect the personality or character of those who watch it.
I thought back to the remarkable study on the problem of violence carried out by Will Wyatt for the BBC. In considering that issue, he said:
There is the argument that broadcasters cannot claim television works as an advertising medium and at the same time claim that television violence has no effect. But television adverts are radically different from programmes in that they give persuasive messages about a particular product. They are designed to raise awareness of that item's existence and are expressly aimed at making the product attractive. They are also part of a complex selling strategy mix, including marketing, promotion and pricing.
Television programmes, on the other hand, are not designed to sell objects or ideas, certainly not violence. which is very often presented as something repugnant. This is not to argue that television violence definitely has no effect, merely that the advertising analogy is false.
I am much drawn to that argument.
I shall now make my own case, before referring to the contribution by my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith). First, I want to remind the House of the regulatory position for television in this country. Responsibility for what is broadcast rests with the broadcasting regulatory bodies and, of course, with the broadcasters themselves. The regulatory bodies—the BBC

governors, the Independent Television Commission, the Radio Authority and S4C—are independent of Government and are responsible for safeguarding the public interest in broadcasting. Indeed, they must lay their annual reports before the House.
It is a long-established principle—and a good one—that Ministers do not seek to intervene in the day-to-day content or scheduling of programmes. Our whole regulatory framework is based on that arm's-length approach. Freedom from Government intervention in the media is an essential component of a democratic society.
The Broadcasting Act 1990 has created a clear framework within which the independent broadcasters will operate with regard to broadcasting standards. Section 6 puts a clear statutory duty on the ITC to ensure that every licensed service includes nothing in its programmes
which offends against good taste or decency or is likely to encourage or incite to crime or to lead to disorder or to be offensive to public feeling".
Similar provisions are contained in the annex to the BBC's licence and agreement.
It was precisely because of the concerns of many members of the public that the Government decided in 1988 to establish the Broadcasting Standards Council. The council acts as a focus for public concern not only about the portrayal of violence but also about the portrayal of sex and about standards of taste and decency in all forms of broadcasting.
The BSC also produces a code of practice which broadcasters must reflect in their own codes. The code was widely debated, not only by the broadcasting industry but also by many interested bodies, such as the National Viewers and Listeners Association and, perhaps most importantly, by ordinary members of the public.
This country is fortunate in having the best broadcasting system in the world. We will not let it be destroyed by a gradual erosion of standards. On that the Government will stand firm.
A number of hon. Members have referred to films. If films are shown on television, the usual television regulatory framework applies.
I shall now deal with the precise functions of the regulators. The ITC must draw up and enforce a general code, which includes a carefully thought out section on the portrayal of violence. All ITC licensees are required to ensure that any programmes they transmit comply with that code. If they do not, the ITC can impose a financial penalty, demand an apology, reduce the term of the licence by up to two years, or revoke the licence.
The BBC also maintains guidelines for programme makers. The governors reaffirmed their commitment to maintain standards in the annex to the BBC's licence and agreement, and have produced guidelines for all levels of production staff to which I shall refer later. In summary, the BBC guidelines prohibit the use of gratuitous violence, require that the consequences of violent acts are not overlooked, require attention to the scheduling of programmes with violent content, and give guidance on the use of clear warnings. Perhaps most importantly, the BBC guidelines warn of the dangers of broadcasting material portraying dangerous behaviour, which children might imitate, at times when large numbers of children are watching.
I am sure that hon. Members are aware of the broadcasters' family viewing policy. We know it as the watershed, which in the United Kingdom is at 9 pm. This


means that programmes before the watershed must be suitable for family viewing, while programmes after 9 pm may be suitable for a more adult audience.
The ITC's family viewing policy goes slightly further. It assumes that as the evening progresses there will be fewer children present in the audience and this will be reflected in the content of programmes. But within that there remains the fixed point. Before 9 pm, nothing which is unsuitable for children must be shown.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wealden, again with great experience and the wisdom of many years' interest in the subject, talked about sanitised violence. When my children were younger, I felt that sanitised violence was the insidioius and dangerous violence on television. Therefore, many years ago, I took an interest in it, and I remember speaking about it in a debate in the House some time ago. The Independent Television Commission programme code has addressed the issue as follows:
There is no evidence that 'sanitised' or 'conventional' violence, in which the consequences are concealed, minimised or presented in a ritualistic way, is innocuous. It may be just as dangerous to society to conceal the results of violence or to minimise them as to let people see or hear clearly the full consequences of violent behaviour, however gruesome: what may be better for society may be emotionally more upsetting or more offensive for the individual viewer.
That is very good sense.
So much for the regulatory position. Despite the care that we and the regulatory bodies have taken to ensure a strict regulatory regime, I know that many hon. Members believe that the policy is not working. The evidence that I have seen, much of which has been quoted in the debate and of which there is much more, does not support the view that the guidelines are widely flouted by the broadcasters; nor do I believe that there has been a demonstrable decline in standards. Similarly, we need to look carefully at the available evidence before we jump to the conclusion that there is some automatic link between a perceived drop in standards and any increase in violent crime.
There has been much research over the years on the possibility of a link between violent television programmes and violent or criminal behaviour. There are, as one would expect in such a controversial and high-profile field, claims and counter-claims. The balance of research has not produced any conclusive evidence that such a link exists. For each study which seeks to prove a damaging effect on behaviour, there is another to disprove it.
Perhaps even more interesting than the academic research is the research among viewers themselves. The Broadcasting Standards Council has done valuable work in this area, as has the ITC. Hon. Members may well have seen the recent report from the ITC—indeed, the hon. Member for Erdington referred to it—published on 24 March, called "Television: The Public's View 1992". That has produced many interesting findings. Unfortunately, it does not extend to the BBC, but, as I think the hon. Gentleman reminded us, 70 per cent. of the viewers surveyed found nothing offensive on ITV, with 72 per cent. saying the same of Channel 4. Even fewer viewers were offended by satellite and cable. That I found surprising, because so often we are told that there is more that is offensive on satellite and cable. That survey showed that only 4 per cent. of viewers saw violence as a cause of offence. Indeed, the majority of viewers—some 71 per

cent.—thought that programme standards had at least been maintained, or even improved. Once again, only 4 per cent. of viewers surveyed criticised the amount of violence.
I realise that surveys involve samples. Sometimes they are self-selected, and sometimes they are people who want to make their views known because they have especially strong views one way or another and are more inclined to answer surveys. Nevertheless, the survey goes some way to helping to put things into perspective.
I am reminded, and therefore gently remind my colleagues in the House, that it is often said that the worst judges of what is on television are Members of Parliament, because they hardly ever watch it. There is a grain of truth in that, but we must put things in perspective. John Thaw in "The Sweeney" has been replaced by John Thaw in "Inspector Morse". If hon. Members look closely at their television viewing, they will find other comparisons. "The A-Team", which used to worry me a lot when I had young children, has gone, and so have "The Professionals". Sanitised violence itself has been sanitised, so let us not leap to easy conclusions.
As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said recently, television is a powerful medium which must be treated with respect. Common sense suggests that it must have an effect on the perception of the world of at least some of the audience. Broadcasters must exercise caution. They must assume that there may well be some relationship between television and behaviour. It is for that reason that I was especially pleased to see that the BBC was prepared to admit that it had got it wrong in showing that now notorious episode of the drama programme "Casualty". For me, that was a clear example of the type of programme in which broadcasters need to be aware not only of when such material is shown but whether it should be shown at all. I am pleased that that seems to have been taken on board.
It was a breath of fresh air—I congratulate him on this—to hear the controller of BBC 1, Alan Yentob, saying of "Casualty" that the BBC got it wrong and would take more care and use more scrutiny to ensure that it understands public sentiment and the public climate. Let us not forget that that is a statement of success—a recognition that things needed to happen and have happened.
We have had enough of violence on our screens. Common sense is beginning to prevail. Programme makers and broadcasters know it. Judging by the comments of Sir Anthony Hopkins, actors have had enough of violence, too.
I should like to turn to another point raised by the survey conducted by the Independent Television Commission. It showed that 68 per cent. of viewers thought that praents should be responsible for children's viewing, with a further 23 per cent. seeing children's viewing as a joint responsibility between the broadcaster and the parents. Only 9 per cent. of viewers thought that broadcasters should be solely responsible.
I say now to that 9 per cent. "Think again". It does not matter whether the programmes that children are watching are in the family living room, in their bedrooms, at a friend's house or on video. Parents know what is suitable for their children. Broadcasters cannot be held responsible for parents who do not take the time to care about what the children watch. For goodness sake: where are the parents when their children are watching all that


television? This is a partnership in which both sides must do their bit, and in which both sides have the option of the on-off switch.
We need to recognise that most television producers are trying hard. Certainly, the BBC has tried hard with its production guidelines, which go into great detail. For example, it suggests that all people involved in production have a responsibility, whether it is the make-up artist deciding how much blood, the editor, the cameraman and the shots which he uses or anyone involved. That is something which must be commended. Not only the controller but everyone involved in the television studio, in scriptwriting, and all the important and technological parts of producing television programmes must be aware of the problem.
As the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton said, the problem is not easily solved. There are certainly no final solutions to the problem of violence on television. There is no cut and dried solution. Opportunities for viewing and listening will continue to proliferate. Technology is not on our side in respect of the number of channels available. Anyone who goes to the United States of America or a dozen other countries and has flicked through the television channels will know what I mean.
Therefore, we must have particular regard to our approach to the problem. The best way of maintaining the standards that common sense tells us are right is for broadcasters and programme makers to share responsibility with viewers, including parents, and with the regulatory authorities.
Parliament will continue to express its opinion and the Government will continue to listen and monitor the position carefully. We in the Government will not be bullied into any general censorship of the media, but we have shown already that when there is a need for action, we will act.

Orders of the Day — Greater London and the South-East

Mr. Neil Gerrard: Obviously, this is a wide subject and the debate could cover many matters. I shall concentrate on a few aspects of what is happening in London and in particular London's economy. I am sure that if we refer to the recent dismal record Ministers will tell us, as they have done on several recent occasions, that we are talking London and the country down. We must say clearly at the outset that to state the facts and the truth about what is happening to London and the south-east, as well as the rest of the country, is not to talk Britain down. Our constituents in the poorest parts of London—the people represented mainly by Opposition Members—are suffering most. We have no interest whatever in seeing their conditions worsen—quite the opposite.
What we see now in London is unprecedented and causes serious anxiety for not only the short term but the long-term future. To walk around parts of east London, such as the part of London that I represent, is a profoundly depressing experience in many ways. It is depressing to see what has happened to the environment and to public transport, how many people are homeless and what is happening to people as a result of mass unemployment.
In my constituency, I have noticed the change over several years. I have been travelling through Walthamstow Central station for several years. Certainly it has been possible to see people sleeping rough and begging on the streets in certain parts of London for a long time. But that never used to happen in most parts of outer London. Only in recent years has it become an everyday occurrence at the stations that I use every day to see people begging on the steps. It never happend a few years ago in outer London, but it happens all the time now.
While many of the comments about the rundown of the economy could be made about any large city, they are particularly disturbing as they apply to London. What is happening in London now is different from what happened in previous recessions. Clearly, the economic problems did not arise overnight, but the current problems are structural and will not go away simply as a result of a general upturn in the economy, if or whenever it comes. They require action by Government and by local government. One of the questions on which we might perhaps touch at some point in this debate is why there is no longer a strategic authority for London which could be dealing, or helping to deal, with some of these problems.
If we look at what is happening and try to measure the crisis, unemployment is a good element to consider. Certainly unemployment is a tool that has been used by the Government to control inflation; it is one of the main planks of their policy in controlling inflation. Since April 1990, the beginning of the current recession, unemployment in Greater London has risen from approximately 200,000 to 472,000. That is on the seasonally adjusted figures, not the actual figures, but it is a fair comparison. That represents 20 per cent. of the total increase in unemployment for the whole of the United Kingdom; 20 per cent. of this has happened in London over the last three years. In that same area, Greater London, we now have about 9,500 vacancies at jobcentres—a ratio of 49 unemployed claimants to every vacancy at a jobcentre.
In previous recessions, traditionally, unemployment in London has been lower than in the rest of the United Kingdom. It was in October 1991 that for the first time unemployment in London went above the average for the United Kingdom, and it has stayed above the average ever since. In fact, it is still going up further above the average. Even in the last month, when nationally there was for one month a small drop in unemployment, in Greater London it continued to go up. So we now have unemployment across Greater London of 11·7 per cent., compared with 10·4 per cent. nationally.
Within that total, there are some particularly disturbing trends. First, what happens if we look at this on an area basis? Taking my own constituency as an example, we now have unemployment running officially at 16 per cent. In some wards it is up to 20 per cent. The six east London boroughs—Haringey, Hackney, Tower Hamlets, Newham, Barking and Dagenham, and Waltham Forest—put a case to the Government recently for assisted area status, and of course we are still waiting to hear how the assisted areas map will be redrawn. The case that they put showed the depth of the problems in that part of east London, with the second highest unemployment rate in the whole of the United Kingdom. Ninety four per cent. of the electoral wards in those six boroughs have unemployment rates above the United Kingdom average, and very high rates of long-term unemployment, nearly 40 per cent. of the people who are unemployed having been out of work for more than a year. That figure is a fake, of course, because someone who is unemployed goes on to a Government training scheme for maybe just a few months and drops out of the unemployment figures, then comes back off the training scheme, is unemployed again and gets counted as a new claimant. Such people are not counted as long-term unemployed, when the truth is that they are. In that part of east London the job vacancy rate is even worse than the average for Greater London as a whole. With 100 claimants for every job vacancy, is it surprising that people simply give up hope of ever having a job and getting back to work again?
The second point that I want to highlight in regard to unemployment is what is happening to youth unemployment. In my constituency, registered unemployment among 16 to 24-year-olds is running at 25 per cent. That is the average for east London. In the six boroughs that have applied for assisted area status, there are 17 electoral wards in which male unemployment among 16 to 24-year-olds is more than 50 per cent. Again, those are just the official figures. We should remember that official figures conceal a great deal. For instance, many 16 and 17-year-olds cannot sign on as claimants. Given that the official figure is more than 50 per cent., one dreads to think about the true figure.
The short-term costs are disastrous. The police in Greater London recognise what is happening to youth crime and are saying that social deprivation contributes to it. Again, it is our constituents in the poor areas who suffer. There are now parts of London, inevitably the poor areas, where it is virtually impossible to get insurance for one's property, so again those living in the poorest areas are worst affected by crime. Unemployment is affecting schools. It is hardly surprising that when 15 and 16-year-olds know what is waiting for them when they

leave school, they are reluctant to become seriously involved in education or to care what is happening, and many drop out or play truant. To compound all those problems, there are cuts in local authority services, particularly non-statutory services such as youth services which are designed to serve those at the bottom of the heap.
The long-term consequences of youth unemployment are incalculable. It seriously worries me to talk to people whom I respect who have worked with young people all their lives and who say that they foresee enormous long-term problems. They say that there is a lost generation of young people who have never worked and will never work because after five or 10 years of unemployment they will become unemployable. Training in low skills for low-skilled jobs which do not exist offers absolutely nothing. The serious long-term implications will not be solved simply by creating new jobs. There is a great deal to be done for those who have been out of work since they left school.
The third element which I want to highlight and which is also particularly relevant to my constituency involves what is happening to the black and ethnic minority population, who inevitably suffer disproportionately from unemployment. In east London, again in the six boroughs that I mentioned earlier, it is estimated that 45 per cent. of the Pakistani and Bangladeshi population is out of work. That is the most disadvantaged group of all. When one considers the racial disadvantage alongside the age structure of the Pakistani population—which in my constituency is the largest in London, and it is a young population so it is affected by youth unemployment—there are bound to be serious long-term consequences. Another point that I have raised with Ministers recently is that grants under section 11 of the Local Government Act 1966 which are specifically designed to address racial disadvantage among people from the new Commonwealth are being cut. At the same time as the problems are multiplying, the grants are being cut.
In the past few years, public investment has been cut, everything has been left to market forces and the option has been to privatise, where possible. That has led to the decimation of London's manufacturing industry. In the second half of the 1980s, half of all the manufacturing jobs lost in the United Kingdom were from Greater London. Walthamstow and the Lea valley used to be a thriving centre of the furniture trade, but now not one factory is left. Similarly, virtually all the light engineering industries have disappeared. Discounting local authorities, the health service and other public bodies, I am convinced that I could count on the fingers of one hand the number of employers with more than 100 employees in my constituency.
The London economy is now imbalanced, because in the 1980s it became far too reliant on the boom in the financial sector. When it caught a cold at the end of the 1980s, London suffered disproportionately. Four out of five jobs in London are in the service sector and a high proportion are found in finance, banking and insurance. What is the future for that sector? What will happen if the European central bank is not located in London? I do not believe that many of the large merchant banks or finance houses will feel any particular loyalty to London or the country if they believe that there are more profits to be made and business to be done elsewhere.
Action to diversify the London economy, so that the necessary investment is created to revitalise our manufacturing and industrial base, has always been missing from Government policy. The Government do not place much priority on that revitalisation, but that is required to achieve long-term improvement in the economy.
Investment is also needed in infrastructure. Public transport is an obvious example. Why is investment in London Underground being cut? If one looks at the autumn statements for 1991 and 1992, the difference in the expenditure of the Department of Transport was virtually zero—about £7,000 out of nearly £6 million. However, that Department has now decided—it is not a Treasury decision—to shift expenditure from public transport to roads. Spending on the roads has gone up while investment in the underground has gone down. London Underground has made it clear that the reduced level of investment means that it will never reach the targets it set to deliver a proper public transport system in London, because it will not receive the necessary returns on investment to make the necessary improvements.
Once bus deregulation is introduced, perhaps within a couple of years, further cuts will be made to public transport in London. I sympathise with the action that the bus workers have decided to take tomorrow because they are being offered less pay for working more hours. It is not surprising that people who have been pushed around year after year have now reached the point where they believe that they have no option but to strike. That action may cause inconvenience to people, but it will be nothing to the inconvenience that they will experience once the bus service has been deregulated.

Mr. Tony Banks: My hon. Friend may like to know that what he is saying is being confirmed by the various interviews being conducted by the media among the travelling public in London. The public are saying that it will be inconvenient, that it is a pity that there is to be strike action on the London transport system on Friday, but that they fully understand what the workers in London have had to put up with. There is much sympathy for the action, even though everyone understands how much inconvenience it will mean.

Mr. Gerrard: I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution, and I agree with him. We have experienced such reactions when previous action has been taken. lin my constituency, Walthamstow bus garage shut down 18 months ago as a result of routes going out to tender. There was no doubt that when bus drivers in that garage took strike action to try to prevent what was happening they received a great deal of public sympathy and support.
A great many socially useful jobs will disappear in public transport. Why cannot we have station staff? Why are ticket collectors being removed from stations? Why are there no staff at night? I suspect that it costs at least as much in lost fares and the fact that people are scared to travel as is saved by getting rid of staff. Walthamstow Central station in my constituency is a joint underground and British Rail station, controlled by British Rail, which unilaterally decided to take away the ticket collectors. London Underground can do nothing about that as it does

not control the booking halls and such areas. People know that they can ride on the underground free, walk out and their tickets will not be checked.

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: Has my hon. Friend received the kind of complaints that I have from constituents who discover that ticket machines are not working because they have been vandalised or because they have not been replenished due to shortage of staff? That causes acute embarrassment to legitimate travellers on public transport. Some machines are also fouled by vandals at night when there are no station staff.

Mr. Gerrard: Absolutely. I have dealt with the cases of constituents who have boarded a British Rail train in such circumstances and been made to pay penalty fares when the original problem was that they could not buy a ticket.

Ms Glenda Jackson: The all-party disability group had a meeting a few months ago on the issue of the difficulties experienced by disabled passengers when travelling, particularly at night, due to lack of staff not only on stations but on trains. A person in a wheelchair attempting to travel alone depends on staff being present at the stations. That is another area of life where the public are being denied access to the public transport system.

Mr. Gerrard: My hon. Friend raises an important issue, which is becoming a bigger and bigger problem—and deregulation on the buses will make it worse. I am convinced that private operators will not be prepared to invest in mobility buses and low-level platforms.
There is a ludicrous situation on the underground system. To revert to the problems at my own local station, I wrote to British Rail and said that removing ticket collectors would cause a problem as people would take advantage of that. British Rail is not worried as it operates a penalty fare system and people getting off the train at Liverpool Street station will be caught if they have not bought a ticket. But London Underground will suffer. Having refused to listen, British Rail is now erecting notices at the station warning people that ticket touts are in operation. Immediately the ticket collectors were removed, a thriving business in buying and selling travelcards was established. Passengers get off the train, someone buys their travelcard for £1 and sells it to someone else to go in the other direction.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: It is all part of the enterprise economy.

Mr. Gerrard: Yes, it is all part of the enterprise economy. It never happened when there were staff.
It would be easy to say that it is all British Rail's fault, but I do not believe that it is good enough to do that. British Rail did not introduce the philosophy of low staffing and railways having to break even or make money without any subsidies. The inevitable consequence is such policies being put into effect. Many useful jobs could be done and should still be done, at a time when we are prepared to keep people on the dole.

Mr. Jim Dowd: My hon. Friend has spoken about the impact of travelling and the loss of fares. Will he also deal with the problems of increased crime and vandalism? The latter was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms. Jackson). I had to deal with the case of a woman in Sydenham who, since staff have been taken from that station, has


approached me to ask Network SouthEast to put close-boarded fencing up, backing on to the platform, in place of the chain link that is there at the moment. She said that that would give her protection from the vandals who turn up at least once every week to wreck the waiting room.

Mr. Gerrard: I am sure that that point will be echoed in many parts of London.
Hon. Members have asked me, when I leave late at night to travel home on the last tube, whether I feel worried about doing so. If I, or people in a similar position, do not feel safe, it is not surprising that many other people feel extremely unsafe and will not use public transport.
I have set out a whole sector where investment has been missing. That investment could be channelled through local authorities. We have a huge homelessness problem at the same time as thousands of skilled building workers are on the dole and capital receipts cannot be spent. The autumn statement did not help. To tell local authorities that only new capital receipts can be spent, when the housing market has collapsed and few will be interested in the right to buy, is to give them little. There is great potential for investment, which will get the construction industry back to work.
Reading the newspapers today about the implementation of the care in the community policy, I was struck by the opportunities that that policy could offer for the creation of useful jobs. Local authorities have to produce statements of need for the people who are their responsibility. At the same time, the Government are telling them that if it seems that, once the assessment has been done, the need cannot be met, the people concerned should not be told. Local authorities do not know where to turn. Are they supposed to produce a statement of need and then be faced with a court action when they cannot provide for it because they do not have the money?
We are told that it is all up to the local authorities. According to this morning's newspapers, the Secretary of State for Social Security has said that local authorities will have to make decisions about priorities. The trouble is that they are told the same thing about every service: their money is being cut, but they must decide priorities. Something has to give. People who should be receiving a service through care in the community will not be receiving it and local authorities will be getting the blame when it is impossible for them to deliver.
I spoke earlier of training schemes, for which there is a crying need. The existing schemes do not work. Often all that they offer is training for a non-existent job, so it is not surprising that people are not interested and that there are high drop-out rates. We need training schemes designed to produce a high level of skills. When I worked in further education before I came here, I found it extremely annoying to see the attitudes and what went on. Often in a poor area what was on offer was poor and of low quality. People took the view that a poor area whose people were unskilled and incapable of A-levels or higher levels of technical qualification and so did not need to be offered them, but rather something basic in the guise of serving the community. It was an insult to the people in those areas not to offer them high quality training.
I am sure that many other issues affecting London will be focused on during the debate—the national health service, policing, education and a strategic authority—and I am convinced that without significant changes in Government policy the present disaster that we see in the economy will continue and London will deteriorate further.

10 pm

Mr. Jim Dowd: I shall not say that I shall be brief because that seems to be code in this place for going on for at least half an hour. I shall say what I have to say as quickly as I can.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) on his good fortune in securing the debate tonight. Matters relating to London and the south-east are clearly of importance to people in London and the south-east. But London, as our capital city, has a particular place and prominence which goes far beyond the concerns of simply those who live and are fortunate enough to work in London.
I want to concentrate for a few moments on the damage that Government policy during the past decade has done to the governance of London. Before the Government took office the London Boroughs Association represented all London boroughs, whether under Conservative, Labour or other control. There was a general feeling at the time that, despite partisan and political differences and despite the entirely proper change in emphasis from one authority to another because problems confronting people in different authorities vary, London was an entity, that it was far more than the sum of its parts and that it had a potential and a future from which we all, as Londoners, whether from inner or outer London, could benefit.
The Government, by their policies during the 1980s, have wrecked that consensus and, as a consequence, the people of London have paid a dreadful price. The split between the London Boroughs Association and the Association of London Authorities was solely attributable to the Government's determination to abolish the Greater London council.
I shall not call this evening for the reinstitution of the GLC or conjure up spectres of filling county hall again with various bureaucrats working on behalf of London, despite that being a far more attractive proposition than filling it up with tourists, which seems to be the prospect for at least part of the building. Only the riverside building has been sold at the moment. The north and south blocks and the island block of county hall remain a white elephant, costing London council tax payers a sum of money to keep empty for no practical purpose.
It is not necessary to reconstruct the GLC, but there is considerable need for a strategic city-wide authority along the lines found in every other city, not just in Britain but throughout the western world and certainly in our most immediate competitor countries in western Europe. London needs to co-ordinate its transport and traffic management services, health, ambulance and emergency services, waste regulation, environmental audits and scientific services.
There is also a need for strategic research on policy and planning for land use, economic development, housing, training, environmental improvements, conservation, the arts, culture, sport, entertainment, tourism and many other issues, which cannot and will never be satisfactorily


dealt with by each of the London boroughs acting on its own. We now know that it is impossible to operate a different transport policy in Bexley or Croydon than in Hillingdon or Havering, and we are paying a fearful price in terms of not just the quality of life but opportunities denied to Londoners.
It is seven years to the day since the Greater London council was abolished.

Mr. Tony Banks: Seven years to yesterday.

Mr. Dowd: My hon. Friend, pedantic as ever, reminds me that today is the seventh anniversary of the first day that Londoners had to survive without a strategic planning authority. The intervening years have brought a degree of recognition on the Government Benches that they will have to row back from that—that certain things can only be done Londonwide.
We have seen the latest fiasco this week, with the launch of the London Forum—a collection of Tory knights and business worthies who are supposed to attract tourism to the capital. Its chairman is Sir Allen Sheppard, chief executive of Grand Metropolitan, and its deputy chairman is Sir Colin Marshall, chairman of British Airways. I can only assume that Sir Colin has been brought in to do the dirty on Paris or Frankfurt and is probably arranging to have their telephone lines bugged and their computers intercepted even as we speak.
The forum's other members include Rocco Forte, the chairman of Saatchi and Saatchi, and the senior partner of Coopers and Lybrand—a rich cross-section of Londoners if ever there was—hand picked, tame individuals who will simply do the Government's bidding. They are supposed to stimulate tourism in the depths of a recession.
No one would argue with that objective and the forum itself requested local authority members—but the Secretary of State turned that request down flat. At least the forum's members recognised that provision must be made for the genuine and authentic voice of Londoners to be heard when attempting to co-ordinate strategy across the city.
The salami approach to London's problems can never be successful. I hesitate to suggest how many London-wide bodies exist now, established merely to replicate the role that a city-wide authority could play as a matter of course. They have failed one after another or have met with only mixed success, but I suspect that we will see many more created before the truth finally dawns on the Conservative Benches.
On Monday, I was interviewed on LBC and asked, "Is it not the case that most Government supporters would admit the need for a London-wide authority in private, but because it has become such a politicised question, none will ever say so in public?" That has become the truth that dare not speak its name on the Government Benches. The reinstatement of a London-wide authority will come about one day. The issue will go away. One will hardly find a Conservative supporter at the time who will admit ever to having been in favour of scrapping the GLC in the first place—just as no Government supporter will admit today to being enthusiastic about the poll tax. The explanation will probably follow the same lines—"It was that woman. She made us do it. We didn't really understand it all. She said it would all be all right." The truth for Londoners is that the absence of a London-wide authority has been far from all right.
To give right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House a grasp of London's loss, I will relate an incident that occurred last year, when I was mayor of Lewisham and had the privilege of attending the final service of the closure of Cane Hill mental institution in Coulsdon. I was pleased to observe that so many residents had gone on to receive a more caring and appropriate form of support in the community than could be offered by that place.
It should be realised, however, that, when it originated nearly a century ago, Cane Hill was a very advanced facility of its kind, for its time. It was established in the 1890s by the London county council, which took the brave step of providing for sufferers from acute mental illness by buying land in the distant area of Coulsdon, thus helping people who would otherwise have been untreated, unsupported and on the streets. That our predecessors in the LCC were able and willing to do that at the turn of the century speaks volumes for their vision.
When I attended that service, it struck me that social care should have moved on in the better part of a century. We should be able to provide a far more sensitive, secure and compassionate service. But where in London is the necessary authority? Who will provide such a service today, so that, in a hundred years, those who come after us will thank us for our perception, our compassion and our ability to make decisions and provide accordingly? I fear that the answer is "No one". I do not know who once described conservatism as an ideology that does not recognise the past and therefore makes no provision for the future, but nowhere is that clearer than in the story of London since the spiteful politicisation of its activities and the abolition of its London-wide authorities.
I cannot fail to mention the Inner London Education Authority. If anything, its abolition was an act of even greater vandalism, for which the people of inner London will pay a sorry price for many years. When the real price is known, it will be much too late to do anything about it. Conservative Members will be pleased to learn that I do not advocate the return even of an inner Londonwide education authority, because I feel that that has gone for good; none the less, I shall not allow the abolition of ILEA to pass without saying that it was an act of gross betrayal and appalling insensitivity. ILEA's reputation for provision for the under-fives and post-16s was exemplary: in many of its activities, especially post-16 provision, it led the nation, if not the world. The price of its abolition is already coming home to Londoners.

Mr. Corbyn: I understand what my hon. Friend has said about the impossibility of returning to ILEA as it was. Does he agree, however, that there is a crying need for the co-ordination of special education provision throughout inner London? Many special schools have been closed and children with particular needs have lost the facilities that they require. We also need much better co-ordination of education for post-16s. I feel that many young Londoners have been failed by the lack of a co-ordinating body to ensure that there is a decent range of post-16 places.

Mr. Dowd: I agree. I was not suggesting for a moment that we could simply leave the boroughs to go their own way; I was simply saying that, in organisational terms, it would be impossible to recreate ILEA in anything like its old form. Once certain things in this world are broken, they cannot be put together again. Nevertheless, those who


broke ILEA should be made to face up to their responsibility, particularly in regard to special needs and post-16s.
Much of ILEA's provision for special needs recognised no borough boundaries; why should it have done so? Yet, on its break-up, some boroughs were left with two or three special units within schools, while others were left with none. There followed the ludicrous spectacle of boroughs being charged to send students to special units in other boroughs simply because they happened to be a few hundred yards—or even a few yards—the wrong side of a line that did not even exist when they were created.
The other day, I asked whether figures were available to show the number of post-16 courses in the London boroughs, compared with the number in the last year of ILEA's existence. The figures did not give the number of courses, but they gave the total number of enrolments.
Since 1990, the figures show a reduction of 10 per cent., from 220,000 down to 200,000 enrolments, at a time when unprecedented numbers of school leavers are taking up post-16 further education places, not because they are choosing freely to do so—although I hope that as many as possible do take them up freely—but because there are no real jobs, as my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow made plain, for them to go to. They are, therefore, going on to further education. I am delighted that they are not rejecting the opportunity.
My point, though, is that at a time when the pressure for further education places has grown to unprecedented proportions, a reduction in the number of further education enrolments in inner London is a matter for remark. There has been a huge drop in the number of mature people taking up non-vocational courses. Their lives were greatly enriched by that provision, but now it is denied to them. Many of the real effects of the abolition of ILEA are hard to determine and quantify. None the less, they are real. A tangible decline in the number of opportunities available to Londoners is leading to a substantial deterioration in the quality of their lives.
Nowhere is the lack of co-ordination across London more plain than in the case of transport. I can do no better than quote what was said last December by the CBI's regional task force:
Traffic congestion costs businesses £10 billion a year. A single body, working with Government Departments, would be able to co-ordinate the efforts of no fewer than 60 organisations at present responsible for transport in London.
There is little or nothing to add to that. Traffic chaos in London is a fearful burden and a great impediment to getting London moving again, in more ways than one, and attracting the investment that we need to make up for the shortfall in job opportunities that my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow so clearly outlined when he introduced the debate.
My hon. Friend also referred to bus deregulation. I draw his attention to an article that quoted the managing director of the east London subsidiary, based in Walthamstow, of London Buses Ltd. He estimates that a quarter of the mileage currently operated by London Buses will be at risk from deregulation. One bus route in four is threatened by deregulation. How on earth can the Conservatives believe that they are doing anything to regenerate London's economy when their wanton,

doctrinaire and dogmatic attitude is putting it, on a flimsy pretext, at such risk? It is to everybody's extreme disadvantage.
As for the police authority for London, the drift here is in entirely the opposite direction. Last week, the Home Secretary anounced at the Dispatch Box that he intended to create a Londonwide police authority. Despite any reservations there may be over the precise proportions and the process he will use to select people to serve on that authority, his statement is to be welcomed. I certainly welcome it. Nevertheless, it seems a strange decision. Last evening, I was speaking to my hon. Friends the Members for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) and for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche), because all three of us, a decade or so ago, were involved in matters relating to policing in London. In the early 1980s, one of our principal demands was for a police authority, other than the Home Secretary, for London. The three of us, and many others, were treated like subversives—we were in the pay of the KGB and various other organisations. We were a danger to civilised society. We were called harmful radicals. It is amazing: we have not changed at all. [Interruption.] I apologise to the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) for waking him up. We have continued to argue persuasively, rationally and reasonably and the Home Secretary has now come to the very same conclusion. I am delighted about that, but I shall want to see precisely what is in the small print concerning the police authority for London.
The London ambulance service is another story. In a debate later tonight, for which I hope hon. Members will stay, there will no doubt be a litany of incompetence, management failure, insensitivity and extremely bad service for the people of London. It was announced yesterday that the London ambulance board is to be replaced with a sub-committee of the South West Thames regional health authority, which is itself at least as culpable in respect of the failures of the London ambulance service. This is a furious, almost frantic, slashing around in the dark in an effort to find an answer when the reality is staring people in the face. What is needed is a Londonwide regional health authority to take control and do the planning.
London is a great city with great potential, not just for its citizens but for the nation. It is an asset being wantony and flagrantly squandered. We in the Opposition look forward to its earliest possible regeneration and to the restoration of a citywide authority—something that the people of London have a right to expect.

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: I welcome the debate initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) as it deals with the area inhabited by the greatest mass of population of this country. It deals with the impact of the Government's policies not only on people in this great, historic capital, but also on people in the area of south-east England outside Greater London—an area in which more than 10·5 million people live, and where more than 5 million of them pay income tax. Since September 1959, the area has lost 157,000 manufacturing jobs. The level of unemployment in the south-east, outside Greater London, is costing the country a colossal £4·3 billion each year. There are more than 140,000 long-term unemployed, and, tragically, 163,000 young people, between 16 and 24, are either on the


dole or ought to be receiving some other form of benefit because they are unemployed. It is a serious charge that the Government are indifferent to the plight of young people who are denied the opportunity of friends at work, job satisfaction and creativity. To complete the picture, I should point out that, in the south-east, there are 25 people seeking every job vacancy. That is hardly surprising as, in the past year, the region had about 23,000 business failures.
It is disgraceful that the attendance of Conservative Members representing the counties around London is so poor. Unhappily, on 9 April 1992 I became not just the only Labour MP but the only Opposition MP for many of the counties outside Greater London. Therefore, as well as speaking up for my constituents in Thurrock, which I am proud to do, and on whose behalf I shall outline the effects of the Government's policies and indifference, I can also legitimately claim to speak for not thousands but millions of people outside Greater London who oppose the Government and who are not otherwise represented in this debate.
If some hon. Members balk at that idea, I ask them to note that there is not a single Conservative Back Bencher from Essex here tonight; there is not a single Conservative Back Bencher from Surrey; there is not a single Conservative Back Bencher from West Sussex or East Sussex; there is not a single Conservative Back Bencher from Berkshire or Hampshire, even though hundreds of thousands of people are unemployed in those counties. Thousands are languishing on hospital waiting lists, thousands are homeless and many families are threatened with the loss of their home. Despite that, not one Conservative Back-Bench Member is here to defend the Government's policies, let alone represent those people for whose plight the Government are responsible.
It is a great shame that those people have been let down in that way, especially when one bears in mind that the south-east of England was what could have been called Thatcher country. It unquestionably contributed significantly to Conservative victory after Conservative victory, but its people have been betrayed tonight because they are not represented in a debate on the impact of Government policies on the people of London and south-east England. The people of Thurrock have been battered and bruised by Government policies. Some of what I have to say relates also to the thousands, if not millions, of people in the south-east outside Greater London.
I am pleased to see the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry), here tonight. Although he is a courteous man and has extended the hand of friendship to me, I have to say that my constituents feel bitterly disappointed about his recent decision not to permit a public inquiry into what is known as the Aveley No. 3 pit. It is in an area where the residents close to the western boundary of Essex and Greater London will have to endure 17 years of constant tipping of rubbish, extraction and lorry movements. That will be to their great disadvantage and may also jeopardise their health. It is a matter of great concern to many of my constituents and people in the neighbouring London borough, but it is also indicative of what has happened elsewhere in my constituency.
If one were to go up in a helicopter or an aeroplane and look down on my constituency, it would look like a moonscape. For decades, it has been exploited by people with a rapacious appetite for tipping rubbish or extracting

minerals. They have no regard for the long-term effects on the area, for its potential beauty or for the health of residents. We look to the Government to say, "Thus far, and no further." We want them to recognise that rubbish tipping and mineral extraction cause considerable problems, and that Thurrock has had more than its fair share. My constituents are bitterly disappointed that the Minister has so far declined to call a halt to tipping and extraction and to protect the people of Aveley by at least allowing them the opportunity to state their case before an independent public inquiry.
I take this opportunity to ask the Minister again to pause and reflect on the matter. Will he at least give me an undertaking when he replies to the debate to reconsider his decision that my constituents will not have the opportunity of a public inquiry into the Aveley No. 3 pit? Will he assure me that the Government will examine much more critically the problem of mineral extraction and waste tipping that bedevils many people in Thurrock and throughout the south-east region and many hon. Members on both sides of the House, and insist on a vigorous application of environmental impact assessments before permissions are given?

Mr. Tim Smith: rose—

Mr. Mackinlay: I will give way to the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith), because I know that he has a particular and legitimate interest in the subject.

Mr. Smith: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way; he knows that my constituency suffers from similar problems. However, he is being a little unfair to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State. My hon. Friend understands what we have to put up with, which is why he has recently published new minerals planning guidance which recognises the problems and seeks alternative sources of supply for minerals.

Mr. Mackinlay: The hon. Gentleman's constituents will take note of his defence of the Government's policy. What has been done is too little too late, certainly for my constituents and, I would have thought, for his, too. I hope that the Minister will reflect on the matter and at least be prepared to take the subject away with him for further thought later tonight.
I shall move on to the next subject. My part of Essex is very much part of commuter country, and the people who live there are suffering from a clapped-out railway system, with high fares and an irregular service, which is threatened with franchising. My constituents want not a franchised railway but one which works and which provides them with a reliable service to take them to their places of employment in London. That will not be provided by a franchising operation. Prospective franchisers will be frightened off by the need to invest both in rolling stock and in the infrastructure. There are two possible scenarios. One is that the railway operation will be flogged off as a clapped-out system and will continue as such—a private monopoly under which commuters continue to be ripped off. The second is that no prospective franchisers will come forward.
The Government cannot escape from the fact that major public investment is needed in the London-Tilbury-Southend line. I hope that that idea will be taken on board.

Mr. John Marshall: The hon. Gentleman talks about the need for increased investment


and implies that privatisation will not help the railway industry. Is he not aware that there has been a massive increase in investment in every industry that has been privatised? If he wants extra investment in the railways he should vote for the Railways Bill.

Mr. Mackinlay: I do not accept that. But it is true that where industries have been privatised there have been major increases in unemployment. That fact leads me to the subject of the West Thurrock power station, where yesterday the staff were told, without notice, that generation of power was to cease at 10 o'clock last night. More than 350 people face unemployment as a result, and that is in addition to the already high levels of unemployment in my constituency, in Essex as a whole and in east London.
Those people are losing their jobs as a direct consequence of privatisation. The Government refuse to adopt a co-ordinated and comprehensive energy policy that would bring together all the agencies that generate power and ensure that energy was produced effectively and cheaply while maximising the use of existing resources and plant. Instead, because the open market is competitive and unplanned, they permit electricity to be imported from France and allow the unplanned growth of new generating plant, while the recession caused by their economic policies has meant that there has been no increase in the demand for electricity. My constituents are facing the dole queue as a direct consequence of a combination of the Government's policies on energy, their policies that have caused the recession, and their privatisation programme. That is my response to the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall), who defends the privatisation of power, transport and many other important industries.
What has been the Government's response to all this unemployment? Last week, we had the publication of the glossy document containing the Government's proposals on the east Thames corridor which had been much heralded. I recognise the employment potential of the river Thames and its related areas in Kent, Essex and London. There is great potential for regeneration, creating employment, and providing mobility and forms of transport, as well as opportunities for recreation. But once we get beyond the glossy covers, there is no substance.
The document talks about regeneration and creating employment, but does not say how. There is only one way to achieve regeneration and that is by a major programme of public expenditure in the key areas of health, housing and education, and the refurbishment of our clapped-out railway system, but the Government decline to do that. So there is no substance to the document. It is a smokescreen for inaction to try to cover their embarrassment about the acute unemployment in Kent and Essex.
There has been talk about homes, and I want homes for families to live in. The problem in the so-called east Thames corridor is not that there is no land to build on, but that there are no customers. There are acres and acres of land with planning permissions for residential development, but, because of the collapse of confidence in the country, people cannot contemplate buying homes. In addition, the Government refuse to allow councils to build housing estates in which families could rent houses. In my constituency, there are thousands upon thousands of planning permissions, but there are no customers.
Throughout the region and not just in my constituency there is acute depression. It is a new feature of the south-east. Hitherto, it has been an area of relative wealth, abundance and full employment, but in the latter years of the Thatcher premiership and under the stewardship of the present Prime Minister we have seen it go into decline, with high unemployment as well as a tragic number of business failures, which are increments of family grief and anxiety.
I speak for, and am angry on behalf of, those people who invested their lives in small businesses, with the prospect of being able to nurture them and hand them on to their children, only to see them fail, not because of their recklessness or lack of business acumen, but because of the failures and indifference of the Government. What a tragedy! Yet Ministers come here pretending that they are the people who defend and speak for small businesses. They have failed them. People have lost their livelihoods and homes as a consequence, and many others have lost their jobs through the failures and the reduction in demand in key industries.
In January, we had unprecedented levels of unemployment in Essex and Kent. A couple of weeks ago Members on the Government Benches were full of glee because somehow there had been a small reduction in the total unemployment figures in the region. However on that occasion unemployment increased in Surrey and in Berkshire. There was a small drop in the other counties which had already reached high levels in January and in many marginal seats which the Government were delighted to have captured at the polls just a year ago.
In an earlier debate the hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) spoke at great length. I dropped him a note to say that I would be referring to him, because of the nature of his speech this evening and those that he has made on other occasions. He boasted that his victory a year ago was of great significance. I guess that is a matter of historical fact. Clearly, the Conservative win in Basildon is written into the history books. Therefore, it becomes a shibboleth and totem of what the Conservatives achieved that night. They cannot be surprised if they are subsequently shot down and indicted for all that Basildon represents and the fact that the people of Basildon now feel bitterly betrayed.
At a time when the hon. Member for Basildon is claiming that there was also a small reduction in unemployment in his constituency, there was an unprecedented council election victory for Labour in Basildon in which David Kirkman won with a 24 per cent. swing to Labour. Indeed, David Kirkman has a higher majority than the hon. Member for Basildon has in the House. This evening in my constituency, the Labour council candidate, John Kent, took 60 per cent. of the poll in a three-corner contest in Grays.
The people of Essex have had enough of this Government. They feel that they have been betrayed by the consequences of electing a Conservative Government. I see it each week in my constituency surgery as, perhaps, do other hon. Members, especially in the south-east of England. There a large number of people were encouraged to purchase their homes and seek the best for their families. I applaud that, as someone who also aspired to that for his family. But in my surgery I see people who are heartbroken, distressed and do not know where to go. They come into our constituency surgeries each week because they have lost their jobs and, as a consequence, are losing their homes. Such families are not reckless. They are


husbands and wives with delightful children and they want to provide the best for their families. However, they find that their homes have gone, not through their fault but through the Government's failure to provide the opportunity and security which come from being in employment.
One could continue at great length with indictments against the Government. Conservative Members mutter because—to use the words of Corporal Jones in "Dad's Army"—
They don't like it up 'em".
I suspect that they will get more of it from my colleagues this evening because almost all of the Government's programmes have failed the British people and particularly the people of this region.
I can illustrate the matter in another way. The Secretary of State for National Heritage has failed this region and London—which is a major tourist area, in which we earn dollars and an area to which we can invite people from overseas—by his neglect of, and indifference to, the fabric of so many of our great monuments and historic sites. If I had lived at the time of the good Prince Albert, the consort of Queen Victoria, I might not have been among his greatest fans, but is not it ridiculous and absurd that, in a major tourist part of London, the Albert memorial is covered up? Apparently it is covered in scaffolding and is rotting because the Government will not ensure that the memorial is protected. The Albert memorial is located in an area which crawls with people from north America who come here to enjoy the beauty of London and spend their dollars. However, this major monument is not so much in mothballs but is rotting because the Secretary of State for National Heritage cannot or will not find the money for it.
In the past 24 hours, I have received a letter which was prompted by the Secretary of State—presumably, he does not read the letters which his underlings write to hon. Members—in which the Master of the Armouries at the Tower of London says that he would have liked to make improvements in terms of fire precautions and safety,
but lack of funds has so far made"—
it—
impossible".
He refers specifically to
the installation of full automatic fire detection and suppression throughout the museum".
He tries to reassure me, but does not, that
This … is an area of improvement which we have seen as necessary to protect the buildings and our collections rather than the visiting public, for in a fully staffed building like the White Tower any danger is soon seen by staff and appropriate measures taken to safeguard the public.
The great historic Tower of London, a symbol of our national independence, is vulnerable to fire. I am not satisfied that the thousands upon thousands of visitors who go there are safe, particularly when the management is reducing the number of staff and Yeoman warders at that great historic site.
The last matter with which I wish to deal is the health of my area. Just this evening, I have been informed by the Basildon and Thurrock hospital trust that it will have to make redundant a large number of non-clinical employees. That is not because the trust has been dilatory. It has not. It is not because it has not fulfilled its obligations. It has. It has worked hard to fulfil its contracts. The trouble is that the crazy system of funding the national health service which the Government have introduced means that the health authority does not have the funds to buy the operations which the trust can provide. The money is not there.
Yet in my area there are large pockets of great poverty and consequential poor health. The accident and emergency department at Orsett hospital in Thurrock was closed due to the Government's indifference to the representations of thousands upon thousands of people from Thurrock and, indeed, Basildon.
I keep returning to the theme that people not only in my constituency but in south-east England outside Greater London seem to have fallen off the table of the Government's consideration. I believe that that is because I am the only Opposition Member for the area and the other seats are deemed to be safe Conservative seats. However, I believe that times are changing. It is interesting that so few Tory Members have attended the debate tonight. Apart from the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw), at this moment there is not one Conservative Back-Bencher in the Chamber.
I am not surprised that the hon. Member for Dover is here, because he represents a marginal seat. His constituency will probably suffer from the construction of the channel tunnel route. There will be acute depression in some areas of his constituency of Dover and in other areas such as Thanet because there will be a gravitational pull of industry and wealth along the corridor of the channel tunnel route. That will jeopardise much of his constituency. So the mind of the hon. Member for Dover has been concentrated on the need to defend his position and his Government's policies in the period running up to the general election.
But let us give the hon. Member for Dover full marks. He is here tonight. Where are the other hundreds of Conservative Members of Parliament? They are not here. I hope that if one message comes through tonight, it will be that when the House of Commons had the opportunity to debate unemployment, health, transport, homelessness and housing, no Conservative Members of Parliament were present from the counties of Surrey, Berkshire, Hertfordshire, Bedfordshire, Essex, East Sussex, West Sussex or Hampshire. That is the greatest indictment of Conservative Members. I hope that their constituents will remember it when we have an opportunity to call them to account at the poll.

Mr. David Shaw: This debate is about Government policies and their effect on London and the south-east. It gives me a great sense of déjà vu to follow the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay). He and I last debated together some 18 years back in the council chamber of Kingston upon Thames. I could not accept his views then and I am afraid that I cannot do so now. But I have always enjoyed his conversation, especially afterwards.
The economy of Dover is much tied up with the economy and well-being of London and the south-east. The Romans landed in Dover well before they came up to see this area of London, which was eventually developed in many respects by the Romans. The Romans were unable to land directly in Dover; we repulsed them, and they were forced to go up the beach to the delightful area in my constituency known as Walmer, where they finally managed to get ashore. The reason why I mention the Romans is that one of the big concerns in my constituency is the road linkage to London, and the A2 road, among others. Indeed, the Old Kent road has a very significant meaning for my constituents.
The Minister knows well the details of my constituency; he has recently visited it and taken a great interest in one particular problem. I know that the nuns of Kearsney are very grateful to him for the considerable support and assistance that he has given them in ensuring that there has been water in the lake at Kearsney recently. His interest in that matter has certainly been very welcome indeed.
The ferries of Dover are well known to many hon. Members and many of them would perhaps accuse me of raising the concerns of those who work in our ferry industry overmuch, but they will understand that for me those concerns can never be raised too much in the House. The ferries of Dover take many millions of Londoners and residents of the south-east on holiday every year. The many transport links to Dover, the road links, are fundamental and important in helping Londoners and residents of the south-east going on those trips and holidays abroad. This debate, therefore, is in my view very important to the interests of Dover.
Many of us who have sat through recent debates on the coal industry and other issues affecting other areas of the country sometimes get the feeling that the House does not discuss the needs of London and the south-east enough. Far too much attention is directed to the needs of certain other areas of the country which have had historically important positions in the economy but may not have kept their own industries and businesses up to date with the latest technology and developments. In consequence, they are undergoing change processes which affect them very deeply, but at the same time attract far more attention than one sometimes feels that they deserve. This detracts from the attention that should sometimes be given, I believe, to the problems that places such as Dover and Deal and other areas of the south-east face.
We all face process of change, especially during a recession, because recession heightens the need within the economy for old industries to give way to the new businesses and new technology which will develop the job opportunities of the following decade. I feel that much is going on in the south-east at present which indicates that

this process of change is now accelerating. We are coming out of recession and we shall be seeing considerable development in the future, and it may well be that the Government can assist in that development in various ways.
Certainly, one way in which the Government can assist is by not going down the route that Labour was offering us at the last general election, because Labour's policies would have been disastrous. It was not difficult for me to point out to my constituents that raising income tax to the level to which Labour wanted to raise it for people earning £21,000 a year or more would hit not only 50 per cent. or thereabouts of people who work on Dover's ferries but, more importantly, 50 per cent. or thereabouts of the people who use Dover's ferry industry. That would have been a fundamental disaster for Dover's No. 1 industry.

Mr. Tony Banks: In this period of honest addressing of the facts in his own constituency, at the last general election, did the hon. Gentleman suggest that a Conservative Government might increase national insurance contributions by 1 per cent., which is the same as putting up income tax by 1p in the pound, or put 17·5 per cent. value added tax on domestic fuel?

Mr. Shaw: One of the commitments that I gave in the general election was that we would ensure that the national insurance fund, which is fundamental in looking after the nation's pensions, would be properly funded. I do not subscribe to the view that one should rush around increasing national insurance and I was very much against the Labour Government when they increased it, but given that we should fund our state pensions, it is appropriate for national insurance to be increased. My constituents will see that the decisions in the Budget are entirely consistent with any election literature that I put out. I said that we would lower income tax and move towards a 20 per cent. rate and we have done that.
Especially after the Rio summit, I never said that we would not put VAT on energy. Hon. Members will know that it is not practical to go to a summit in Rio de Janeiro and give a commitment to all the countries in the rest of the world that we shall work to reduce greenhouse gases and then not take steps to deliver on that commitment. Everyone in the House who is at all honest will recognise that we have to do something to affect the price of energy so that people will be encouraged to conserve it. That is consistent with all the material that I put out in the election campaign.

Mr. Corbyn: I did not want to interrupt the hon. Gentleman on national insurance, but if I can take him back to the situation in his constituency, what message can he give the people of Deal, particularly the large number of unemployed miners who worked extremely hard in the remaining coalfields in Kent until 1985–86 when the Government that he supports closed down the remaining Kent coalfield, brutally, in my view? We have now lost those skills and productive capacity and there is great unhappiness and misery among those who formerly worked in that industry.

Mr. Shaw: In 1985–86 I was not a Member of Parliament, so I was not in a position to take an active role in supporting the coalfields that were closed prior to my election. I was elected in 1987 and one coalfield was closed after that. I spent considerable time trying to establish


whether there was any way in which it could be kept open. I was on the phone to the chairman of British Coal and liaised closely with a number of miners—people of a different political persuasion from myself, perhaps of a more extreme political persuasion. I tried to act in their best interests to find an opportunity for a buy-out or some other way to keep that pit open.
One of the problems in my discussions with the chairman of British Coal was the attitude of a small group of miners who were in control of the trade union. They were so negative in their relationship with British Coal that I could not get British Coal or its chairman to the point at which we could effect sensible negotiations. Although the attitude of British Coal was not ideal in the circumstances, after the violence of the coal strike of 1984 I could not help but understand why the attitude of the National Union of Mineworkers and those in my constituency who had sided with Arthur Scargill at the time resulted in the closure of the pit.
I would have welcomed an opportunity for the pit to remain open, but the trade union was more Sheffield-orientated in its obedience to the NUM than many other pro-Scargill parts of the union. The blind attitude towards the standard policy of the NUM was outrageous. That is why, sadly, production in the Betteshanger colliery never achieved an economically viable level. I saw British Coal's investment programme for Betteshanger. It could have remained open until recently, even in the present situation, had it achieved the production levels that British Coal and I wanted. I still see many of those miners, and I believe that they were let down by a small group of trade union officials' slavish obedience to Sheffield.
Labour's policies and attitudes would have a disastrous impact on my constituency. Those attitudes, even when they are displayed by those in opposition, are sometimes extremely damaging because they encourage people to think that there are alternative ways in which to obtain jobs other than through the private sector. They encourage people to think that there are other ways in which to create successful businesses other than through existing businesses which create profits.
Many people still write to me saying, "Isn't profit a dirty word?" Even after 14 years of Conservative Government, some people do not understand that if there are no profits, one does not attract more investment, and that without that investment, one does not create jobs. People go on about the high salaries of managers and the profits earned, but they do not realise that they are taxed and that that tax revenue helps the economy. They do not realise that those factors attract people to bring their businesses here. Tremendous opportunities are often lost because people worry about what might happen if Labour party attitudes became more influential—the party need not be in government—because they believe that they are wrong and do not help business development.
Those concerns may explain why we only attract 50 per cent. of inward investment to Europe from around the world. I should not say "only" 50 per cent. when the remaining countries of the European Community attract the other 50 per cent. between them. The investment that we attract represents a major vote of confidence in the Government. I have no doubt that if the Labour party were in power we would not receive such a vote from abroad.

Mr. Tom Cox: My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) and I are members of the Council of the Europe. On Monday we attended a meeting of the Social and Health Committee in Brussels and were given a presentation on social dumping—the hon. Gentleman will know what I mean by that. The hon. Gentleman may speak about foreign confidence in the United Kingdom, but other members of the Council did not express confidence in the policy of social dumping, now encouraged by his Government, which operates at the expense of workers in other European countries. He should meet some of his political colleagues in Europe and learn at first hand about that problem.

Mr. Shaw: If the hon. Gentleman told Sony, Toyota and Nissan that their plants in Wales, Derbyshire and Washington represented social dumping they would be deeply offended and would say, "If you don't want our investment and jobs, we'll go home." That is not the attitude of the Conservative Government, thank goodness. The Government have been successful in attracting good jobs which offer good wages and opportunities. If the hon. Gentleman is worried about what might be called social dumping, he should be concerned about low wages. We are trying to become a high-wage economy, but that cannot be achieved with the dinosaur-like attitudes of the Labour party and the trade unions to industries in the past.
If we listened to Labour party attitudes and statements we would think that we were trying to preserve the candle industry or the horse-drawn carriage industry. My constituency had to suffer in 1846 when the horse-drawn carriage industry went out of business overnight because of the railway. With the introduction of the railway, many people lost their jobs in my constituency. The same was true with the introduction of iron and steel ships, when all the repairers of wooden ships lost their jobs. The Labour party would be trying to keep wooden ships, the horse-drawn carriage trade and the horses.
There are better jobs to be had among the more efficient, technical jobs of the future. We must go forward with new technology and better jobs for the future. As the Government continue in office—I hope, for many more years—I hope that they will bring in more international investment as it often brings good ideas. Sadly, those ideas are not always developed here because we cannot always develop every idea in the world. However, we still win many more Nobel prizes than most countries per thousand of population. As we cannot develop every idea, we have to continue to attract a lot of outside investment.
The Labour party has negative attitudes to profit and business—the latest Trades Union Congress document contains no reference to profits. Such attitudes mean that we are not having an important political debate in this country. On the Floor of the House of Commons we should have debates about which side can produce better profits for British industry, which side can produce higher added value and, in consequence, higher wages, better standards of living and more taxes paid on the profits to provide a better financed health service and education system, and all the advantages that come with high profitability in business and industry.
All that we hear from the Labour party is talk of more and more regulations on business and industry. One Labour Member has just spoken of more authorities, the need to set up more bodies and another Greater London


body to mimic the Greater London council. Those of us who have to live in London during the week have been far better off without a GLC and all the interference.
I served on a borough council with the hon. Member for Thurrock, who must surely remember the constant referral to the GLC that we had to have from Kingston about planning issues. There was constant interference from the GLC. If the hon. Gentleman is honest, he must surely remember that it was nothing but a nuisance constantly to have to refer issues from Kingston to the GLC.

Mr. Gerrard: I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's comments about the number of bodies that the Labour party want to create. How many organisations did the Conservative Government create to replace the one organisation that used to exist in London, the GLC? How many quangos now exist to do the job that that one body used to do?

Mr. Shaw: Sometimes it is not the number of organisations that is important, but the powers and staff that they are given to interfere in other people's lives. An organisation which consists primarily of volunteers acting in an advisory capacity is totally different from a Greater London council with 30,000 staff which was constantly interfering in our decision-making processes. When I was a member of Kingston council, it was unable to make many important decisions without having the Greater London council interfering in the way we operated.

Mr. Mackinlay: A Conservative Government created the Greater London council. When things were going well for them, they were pleased to gain control of the council. When they lost control, they did not like the fact that it provided checks and balances against their excessive power here at Westminster. The council was destroyed because the former Prime Minister, Lady Thatcher, did not like anybody challenging her authority—for no other reason.

Mr. Shaw: The hon. Gentleman is deliberately trying to shorten history. As I recall, what happened was that we had the London county council. Under Labour, that body was totally corrupt, and tried to build the Conservatives out of London.

Mr. Corbyn: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Gentleman to announce that the former LCC was totally corrupt without specifying what form that corruption took, who benefited from it, or anything else? It seems to me that a blanket assertion like that is not in order.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): It is in order.

Mr. Shaw: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. John Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that the real test of the efficiency of local government in London since the abolition of the GLC is the number of people employed by local authority bodies such as the London residuary body? Has there not been a substantial reduction in the number of people employed in local government in London? Furthermore, has not the LRB raised a great deal of money, to the benefit of all Londoners, by selling off surplus assets?

Mr. Shaw: My hon. Friend, who knows a great deal about London, is right. In answer to the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) let me say that I was coming on to make the point that the reason why the LCC was corrupt was that one of its major policy aims was to build the Conservatives out of London. Many of the social and crime problems of London are the result of LCC housing estates, many of them strategically built in the attempt to do that. That has backfired on the Labour party, because now each boundary commission change gives more seats to the Conservatives outside London because more and more Conservative-thinking people have had enough of certain areas and have moved out to the shire counties.
When one looks at Labour-run councils such as Lambeth, Haringey and Hackney, which waste money and have corrupt practices, one has to recognise that the cycle of corruption will have to be stopped soon, in the interests of the British people. Many of those councils are over-employing because they have to appease the trade unions which elect the councillors at the Labour party branch meetings. Until we can break that cycle, we shall not have proper and democratic local government. There is a particular problem in London and the south-east where Government policy must be ever more forceful, alert and aware of the problems.
My constituency is concerned about transport and transport arrangements. Those are fundamental, given the position of Dover and Deal in relation to the south-east and access to it. We are grateful to the Government for the A20 road link that is being built. We are concerned about the delays, and I am grateful to the Minister for Roads and Traffic, who has made sure that many of my constituents, especially those running businesses which have suffered, will receive compensation. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will convey my thanks, and my concern that, among his Easter recess enjoyments, the Minister will look into his red box to see the difficulty that the road construction is still creating for certain of my constituents, so that their businesses can be saved from bankruptcy. I know that he is taking an active interest, but I should like to place on record the concerns of my constituents that that should be looked at, even during the Easter recess.
I am also grateful for the fact that the former Secretary of State for Transport, now in the House of Lords—Lord Parkinson—agreed to the dualling of the A2 between Dover and Lydden, which will be of immense benefit to people in the south-east who want to communicate with the continent via Dover. The reality, however, is that the planning stages in the dualling of the A2 are taking a long time. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minster will take note of that and ensure that the Department of Transport will do everything possible to quicken the process of planning the road improvements between Dover and Lydden, which are important for my constituents.
I cannot give the Government full marks, sadly, when assessing the way in which British Rail is operating, especially in terms of rolling stock. Primarily it is a British Rail problem, however, and not a Government one. The Government have given British Rail massive investment moneys. Large sums have been directed to BR's external financing limit to enable it to undertake a considerable investment programme. Unfortunately, a large part of that programme is related to channel tunnel rolling stock. British Rail seems to be under the impression that it can continue spending on lots of lovely rolling stock for the


channel tunnel and without providing a decent amount of new rolling stock on the south Kent coastal route. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will draw the attention of Department of Transport Ministers to the continued failure of BR to produce a sensible programme for introducing new rolling stock on the coastal route.
The Government, with the Opposition's full support, have implemented the construction of the channel tunnel—obviously through the private sector, but with the full approval of the House in terms of legislation. The tunnel, combined with the single European market changes, will have a considerable effect on the number of jobs available in my constituency. Unemployment will result from these changes. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will take on board that sometimes far too much attention is focused on coal mining and other areas when changes are taking place elsewhere as a result of Government and international policies which reduce job opportunities. The effects of the channel tunnel and the single European market need to be considered carefully by the Government.
We shall face many changes in Dover. We can face them and handle the implications; we are not burying our heads in the sand. Much planning has been undertaken by the Conservative-run Dover district council in an extremely sensible way, but we may need some Government assistance. We are not making as great a fuss as some areas. We take the view that that is not necessary on the basis that a sensible, well put together argument presented rationally will be listened to by the Government. I hope that my hon. Friend will draw to the attention of Ministers at the Department of Trade and Industry who are examining assisted area status the need for some form of assistance for Dover and Deal to enable the area to tackle the problems which lie ahead.
The designation of assisted area status is not always the best way of helping an area. I subscribe to the view that enterprise zone status offers many opportunities. I have been told that there is a ridiculous European Community-inspired principle that an area cannot have enterprise zone status without first having assisted area status. I hope that that advice is wrong, but I fear that, sadly, it is true. That bureaucratic principle may stop Dover and Deal from securing the ideal status—enterprise zone status—which would bring more assistance and benefit to my constituency.
We should like to develop an industrial park at Whitfield. The council has the land organised and there is the opportunity to go ahead. Dover's harbour board is up front in trying to get a development programme in place for the Wellington and Western docks. I pay tribute to the management team and others who have been involved in putting the plan together. There is a tremendous opportunity for Dover, and with the right roads we can move forward. We need some form of Government assistance to ensure that the various projects can come to fruition. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will confirm tonight that the Government will give Dover as much assistance as is reasonable, and a fair share of assistance relative to other areas of the country.
I know that the Government will help London, the south-east, Dover and Deal, and east Kent far more than any Labour Government would. A Labour Government's priorities would be elsewhere. A Labour Government's agenda would be elsewhere—and a Labour agenda always costs the country dear. It would be far more expensive for

my constituents than any other. I want a Conservative Government with lots of energy and enthusiasm to help to tackle the problems of the south-east and to help us move forward to the year 2000 with confidence. I know that a Conservative Government will do that.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Driving to the House this evening, I travelled along St. Pancras way, in the borough of Camden, just north of King's Cross and St. Pancras stations. I saw one of London's normal sights—a group of 50 people carrying plastic bags, waiting alongside dustbins and rubbish piled up against the wall for the night shelter hostel to open. It opens each night at about 10 o'clock. The homeless can get a roof over their head and a bed for the night, and in the morning they must leave again—and spend another day tramping the streets of London.
Last night I attended a moving gathering at Islington town hall organised by a youth group called Speak Out for the Homeless. It was not a traditional public meeting, with a series of speeches by councillors, housing pressure group members, Members of Parliament, and so on. Most of the evening was taken up with young homeless people telling the story of their lives on the streets of London.
They included young women who had grown up in children's homes, and received inadequate community care at the time of leaving the home. They then found themselves in inadequate accommodation, involved in drugs and prostitution, and suffered all manner of violence against them. They ended up drugged, wasted and destroyed, hanging around Piccadilly circus and the streets of this capital city. They have got out of that, to the extent that they now enjoy some form of regular shelter and are at least able to tell the rest of us about their experiences.
It is a question not of solving housing problems in London but of witnessing a steady decline in housing standards. We are seeing young people's lives blighted by the shortage of affordable rented accommodation. We are witnessing the misery of young children suffering from chronic asthma or bronchitis living in damp, dirty, overcrowded flats that the council does not have the money to repair—and no other flats to which it can move such families.
We are seeing at the same time, still, the endless, speculative building of office blocks all over the capital, which remain empty. That is a shame, it is disgusting, and it is appalling. Responsibility for it lies fairly, squarely and totally with central Government's attitude towards the capital's housing needs.
I represent an inner-city constituency, as do a number of my hon. Friends. Our communities live for the most part in council accommodation. I am not particularly proud of the quality of much of it. It was built according to nonsensical, cost yardstick methods and too quickly, and inadequate thought was given to open space and nursery provision.
It is impossible for anyone to escape from tower block or deck access flats—there is simply nowhere to go. The idea that the Government are solving the problem is a hollow laugh. They produced a number of rough sleepers initiatives, which were introduced not out of any deep concern for the problems of London's homeless but to get them off the streets and into night shelters—to get them out of sight and out of mind.
It is no life for people to live permanently in shelters and hostels; it is no life for 18,000 to live in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. What can, must and, I hope, eventually will solve London's housing crisis is real investment by the public sector to ensure the provision of social housing, at affordable rents, for all the people of London, so that they have decent, safe, dry roofs over their heads. If anything less is provided, the city will continue to decline.
The knock-on effects of bad housing are family break-ups, under-achievement in schools, crime, unemployment and a great deal of misery. Last night, there was a repeat showing on television of "Cathy Come Home". That woman's prospect of finding a house all those years ago was much greater than it would be now. The film was moving in the 1960s, when it first came out; it is a crying shame that the present situation in London is not better, but worse than it was when that marvellous film was made. It is about time that the Government woke up to the misery that they are causing thousands, if not millions, of people in this capital city—and, indeed, outside it—through the shortage of decent, affordable housing.
The solution lies in the Government's hands. It does not lie in their constant attacks on local authorities. My authority, for example, has had to sell 5,000 homes in the past five years. It did not want to sell any of those homes: it knows that each sale means the removal of a home that could have been allocated to someone on the waiting list, or to a homeless family. But it had to sell them. It will not build any homes this year. Some housing associations, after a great deal of effort, will manage to build a very small number of places; our waiting list, like that of every other London borough, is constantly lengthening, and the only people with a chance of being housed are the homeless—provided that they are vulnerable and have dependent children. The single homeless lose out completely because of the lack of a proper housing strategy for London.
I shall give the Minister plenty of time to reply. I hope that he will tell us precisely what the Government are doing to solve London's housing crisis, and that he will not tell us that the private sector is to let rip. Letting rip in the private sector has led to private-sector rents of as much as £150 a week for a one-bedroom flat in my constituency. That is way beyond the means of anyone receiving the normal low wages that—tragically—exist throughout London. I do not want the Minister to tell me that the private sector will invest in affordable rented accommodation; that simply is not credible. The only answer is a serious attempt to invest on the part of public authorities with public funds.
Some years ago, we had an elected authority for London. We had a Greater London council; before that, we had a London county council. The hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) seems to think that the London county council tried to destroy the Tory party in London by building decent houses. If the Tory party in London is afraid of decent houses, good: I am very glad. That exposes what their argument is about. The London county council's quality of construction was incredibly high. I am thinking of the Downham estate, the Debden estate and many other London estates, which were built to a very high standard. Later, building mistakes were made by every local authority, Tory and Labour, by the GLC and

by other metropolitan authorities. We embarked on system building of high-rise developments far too rapidly—perhaps, indeed, we should not have embarked on it at all—with all the attendant social problems.
Exactly the same problems are being created now by the Department of the Environment's attitude to cost yardsticks and the density of public-sector building. It is about time that we began to realise that if we want decent homes with gardens for ourselves, it is reasonable for everyone else to want the same. Such homes should be available from councils and housing associations just as easily as they are available on the open market in the private sector.
I shall mention one or two other matters, but I think that housing problems are among the most serious, pervasive and destructive currently experienced by the people of London. We need a crash initiative to deal with the crisis; otherwise, we shall reap the whirlwind later.
Tomorrow, London will be paralysed by traffic jams. There is to be a public transport strike. I understand the reasons why that strike is to take place. I understand why bus workers, who have given a lifetime of loyalty to London Transport, are going on strike—they are being forced to sign documents to reduce their wages, increase their hours and put their jobs out to competitive tendering at some time in the future. They believe in an integrated public transport system, just as the railway workers do. Why should they be forced to sign their own redundancy notices? That, in effect, is what privatisation of the railways and deregulation of the buses will mean.
When people from other parts of this country, or from other countries, visit London they say to me, "Why on earth do you put up with the chaos, the congestion, the pollution, the high fares and the inadequate service in London?" I tell them that it is good, compared with what it is likely to be in three or four years' time. At the moment we still have the vestiges of an integrated public transport system, but by the time the docklands light railway has been sold off, bus franchising has gone full circle, there has been total deregulation of the buses and the railways have been privatised, there will be no possibility of an integrated and decent public transport system in London. When one looks into the minutiae of the Department of Transport's capital spending plans, one begins to see that the logic of it is to transfer yet more journeys in London and the south-east—if not directly in and out of central London—from public transport to private car commuting. That is a disaster for us all.
Another issue to which I wish to refer—the health of Londoners as a whole—is related to the two previous issues. I mentioned the pollution that results from the high level of private car ownership and usage in London and the child and adult health problems that are brought about by poor housing in London. London is not a particularly healthy city to live in. Its air is very polluted and it is very congested. There is a great deal of social and individual tension, brought about by poverty and unemployment. There are 150,000 people waiting for hospital appointments.
Logic tells me that to deal with this problem we should make full use of our existing hospitals and that we should even consider building new hospitals and providing additional health care. The Government propose to spend £170 million on a primary care initiative, which I have no objection to, except that it is far too small and is limited to only six boroughs. By using the long-arm tactic of regional


health authorities, and others, the Government hope to get away with the closure of at least seven hospitals in London, with the loss of a very large number of hospital beds. I cannot understand how losing hospital beds and closing hospitals and casualty units will reduce waiting lists. Logic tells me that it is simply not possible to do it that way.
I hope that the appalling state of London's health services and the need for a London health authority and the planning of health care for London as a whole, rather than being divided between the four Thames health authority regions, will be recognised in the debate. I hope that it will also be recognised that the internal market is incapable of providing proper health care for the people of London, because all that matters to the internal market is the buying and selling of health care between health authorities and particular hospital trusts.
Both I and other Members with constituencies in the area, including my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson), recently had a very interesting meeting at the Whittington hospital. At the end of it, we were appalled to find that our local health authority had yet to sign a contract for this financial year for its patients—our constituents—to be treated by the hospital trust. It is crazy to run a health service in such a way that in March and April of each year there is a panic about whether a contract will be signed so that our constituents can get the health care for which they pay through their insurance and tax contributions.
It would not be right to mention health without also mentioning the ambulance service. Later tonight my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) has a debate on the subject. He is to be praised for the work that he has done over many years in exposing the way in which the London ambulance service has been run. He is also to be praised for his work with the unions and those who are employed by the London ambulance service to get a decent ambulance service for London. It was his work and that of the unions, community health councils and others that exposed the nonsensical way in which the London ambulance service was run. Eventually it led to the resignation of the director. Now the entire London ambulance service board has been dismissed. Everything has reverted to the South West Thames regional health authority.
The situation that has arisen in the London ambulance service is chronic, but it is a typical result of the notion that every public service can be run by some quango, that one has only to avoid public-sector control. The London ambulance service was founded by the London county council and was run by that body and, later, by the Greater London council. At that time, there was real public accountability. Here we have an object lesson for our approach to many other aspects of life in London.
This city is in a state of crisis. We have a crisis of housing, a crisis of transport, a crisis of health and a crisis of employment. We have 468,000 people registered as unemployed. Each of them is willing, able and ready to take a job, but the job is not there. Because of the way in which the list of the unemployed is drawn up, many people cannot even have their names put on it. Last year, fewer than a dozen school leavers in my borough went straight into a job. Obviously, some started further or higher education, but very many youngsters who had grown up in the borough, like many from other boroughs, went straight from school to unemployment.
It is an appalling crisis. We have seen the closure of manufacturing industry. There is a lack of planning and a lack of investment, yet there is work to be done in the health service, improvement of the transport infrastructure, the building of homes and the redevelopment of some areas of manufacturing industry. But unless the capital city has a planning authority, and some concept of planning, this simply will not happen. The free market has entirely destroyed the manufacturing base, especially in north and east London. We saw the introduction to the east end and the City of lots of fly-by-night office jobs, which then disappeared. Now we have the nonsense of large numbers of empty office blocks as a testament to a period of lack of planning.
If ever there was a point in the history of a capital city at which chaos had been achieved and further chaos could be avoided, this is one. But to achieve that, we need an elected authority with a mandate to plan and to ensure that Londoners are decently housed and have decent health and education services and that somebody is taking responsibility for, and an interest in, the development of industry. Earlier this week a group of Labour Members stood on the steps of Westminster pier to promote a petition for an elected authority for London. We signed the petition, and it will be signed by thousands more Londoners. They understand the situation. They want to live in a clean, healthy and happy city. That cannot be achieved if the free market is allowed to rip, resulting in the destruction of all that is good in London and in the creation of a mess in which it will not be possible to solve any of the problems.
Seeing how few Members are in the Chamber, I am struck by the thought that the House may not be taking these problems very seriously tonight. None the less, we shall have to deal again and again with the choice between a properly run capital city and the propsect of further chaos and higher crime rates. Such misery is clearly beckoning.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I call Ms Glenda Jackson. Before the hon. Lady speaks, I must point out that, as she has spoken already, she needs the leave of the House.

Ms Glenda Jackson: I am most grateful to have the leave of the House to participate in this part of the debate, and I am equally grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) for giving us the opportunity to discuss the Government's policies—or, rather, the lack of Government policy—with regard to Greater London and the south-east.
There is a popular myth that my constituency of Hampstead and Highgate is a leafy suburb populated entirely by millionaires, who drink only champagne and whose only conversational exchange could be deemed to be chatter. I feel that a similar attitude prevails in relation to London as a whole. As all my hon. Friends have pointed out, the reality is very different. Unless perceptions—in particular, the perceptions of the Government—can be shifted, the decline that we have witnessed in the capital since the onset of the present recession could become irreversible.
Another popular myth circulating at present is that we can somehow talk our country, and with it our capital, back to economic health: if we do not criticise or find fault,


confidence will return and everything in the garden will be rosy. However, it is precisely that head-in-the-sand attitude which has led to London's dire economic circumstances. Unless we begin to face up to London's problems, we shall never have a hope of overcoming them.
A year ago, I made my maiden speech and referred to the 5,000 of my constituents who were without work. That figure has now topped 6,000, and a recent survey by the Association of London Authorities predicts that, by 1997, more than 7,000 of my constituents will have no job. One ward in my constituency has an unemployment rate of over 20 per cent., and unemployment in Hampstead and Highgate as a whole is worse than the average unemployment rate for any area of the United Kingdom with the exception of Northern Ireland.
Every eight hours, another job is lost in my constituency, but that is not a freak problem specific to my constituency. More than half the unemployment in the country is located in London and the south-east, and London alone has a greater number of unemployed people than Wales and Scotland put together. Indeed, last year London lost a job every seven and a half minutes, and 49 Londoners are now chasing every vacancy. That is the reality of London.
London is a city with major social and economic problems, which are not transient. My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow referred to the apathy felt by young people who regard education as pointless because it will not lead to employment. That is confirmed by a case of which I heard from a dedicated worker with a group that attempts to stop drug abuse among young people. He said that he knows young people of 14 and 15 who can earn £1,300 a week selling, pushing and using drugs. He wondered what we had to offer as an alternative. What, indeed, after 14 years of Conservative government, do we have to offer them?
Unemployment in London has become structural. Even if the most optimistic growth estimates for next year and the following year are realised, London will enter the next century with more than half a million people unemployed. London has an economy which is geared to the service sector, yet it has no industrial base to service. It has an economy which is primarily geared to the financial sector, yet a country whose capital is bidding to be the location of the European central bank cannot even maintain an exchange rate comparable with its European partners, and 20 million sq ft of office space in the capital is empty.
London has an economy which depends on being the gateway to Europe, yet, even though its roads are clogged with congestion which costs this country £10 billion a year, investment cannot be found for railways to link the east of the capital to the west or the Jubilee line to Canary Wharf, but £25 billion can be found for widening the M25.
How can we expect the economy of London to grow and to compete when more than 400,000 Londoners are forced to stand idle and when, with the year 2000 beckoning, we cannot provide more than 40,000 London families with a roof over their head which they can call their own?
My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) referred to the drama-documentary "Cathy Come Home", which was shown again on Channel 4 last night. It is 30 years since that film was made but Cathy still

does not have a home. The hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) has a theory about reducing crime and social difficulties, problems that he laid at the door of the London county council for building homes. I assume that he endorses the Government's policy of reducing crime and possible social unrest by ensuring that people have no homes in which to live.
Despite there being more than 40,000 homeless families, since September 1990 more than 20,000 construction jobs have been lost in London. Setting aside the human tragedy involved, what are the economic implications of those statistics?
How much does it cost to support homelessness in London? The last estimate that I saw said that it cost £15,000 to keep a family of four in bed and breakfast. How much does it cost to support the 20,000 construction workers who have lost their jobs? It costs £180 million ayear in unemployment benefit alone, and that does not even begin to touch the loss in tax revenues and national insurance. How much does it cost the businesses that rely on the consuming power of those who are now homeless or unemployed, and therefore are no longer consumers?
Few cities can have as much potential as the city of London—and few cities can have seen their potential so comprehensively wasted. London can still be turned round, but to do so will take direction, understanding and commitment. It is farcical that London remains the only capital city on earth that has no central strategic authority.
How can London and Londoners pull together, or have any sense of common purpose, when London is governed by a maze of unelected, unaccountable quangos, joint boards, committees and units, all with their own agendas and ideas of what London wants and needs? How can any economy flourish in an environment where planning and investment decisions must be made against such a chaotic background? Also, what chance is there for London when so many of its problems are so blatantly dismissed or ignored?
At present London is suffering economic hardship as bad as that in any area of the country. Yet because only 17 per cent. of London jobs are now based in the industrial sector London is excluded from European regional development fund assistance. That is why it is essential that when the new assisted areas map is published London does not find itself excluded from domestic aid in the same way as it has been excluded from European assistance. What London requires above all else is commitment. Assisted area help is important, but London needs the long-term investment that will enable it to help itself.
It has been estimated that 150,000 additional local authority and housing association homes are required in London over the next five years. If a programme to tackle that housing deficit were launched today, it could create 26,000 jobs in the first year, rising to over 50,000 jobs by the time the project was completed. Alternatively, if the investment to provide the rail and other transport infrastructure improvements necessary to tackle London's appalling traffic congestion were provided, the rail projects alone would provide 49,000 jobs. That is an unlikely prospect, on the day that the Government have announced that British Rail's public service requirement is to be cut by 23 per cent.—but that is the kind of commitment that London's economy needs.
Attempting to talk London up is an exercise in futility if we continue to allow a lack of investment to run London down. Rome was not built in a day, but Nero saw it burn


in half that time. In the same way, we can either begin the slow, steady process of reversing the decline of our capital, or we can watch it spiral downwards, becoming little more than a curiosity, captured in the lenses and postcards of tourists who could not afford Marine World or wanted a break from Euro-Disney.
I believe that London deserves better than that—certainly Londoners deserve better than that—and that it can indeed be better. If we give London the tools, the people of London will finish the job—and what is, after all, the nation's capital can become a world capital, worthy of the name.

Mr. John Marshall: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I shall call Mr. John Marshall, but before I do so I point out to him that, although he does not need the leave of the House to speak this time, he has a slot of his own later—No. 6—and if there were then an objection to his speaking, he would have lost his slot.

Mr. Marshall: I hope, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that Opposition Members will be as tolerant of my short remarks as we were of the hon. Member's for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson). I notice that no Liberal Democrat Members are here tonight; they are great talkers about community politics, but they have not stayed to take part in them.
I welcome the fact that we are having the debate tonight, because today we see the start of tomorrow's one-day national rail strike, which will cause great hardship to Londoners and other people in the south-east. When there was some comment on the subject earlier today, the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) said that he supported the strike. I hope that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), who will be speaking on behalf of the Opposition, will condemn his colleague the hon. Member for Bradford, South, and the strike.
I welcome the fact that the Minister who will be summing up for the Government is the same Minister who made announcements earlier this week about unauthorised gipsy encampments. They have caused great hardship to many people in my constituency. We have had them on the Clitterhouse and Westcroft estates. I am grateful to the Minister for listening to the representations which I and others have made over the past few months. I am glad that he intends to act—in the very near future, I hope.
I have listened with interest to what has been said about the former Greater London council. For 15 years I was an elected councillor in the borough of Ealing. One found that the GLC was a source of duplication and delay. There were frequent disagreements between the boroughs and the GLC which resulted in a Minister having to appoint a planning inspector. Sometimes decisions which could have been reached in four or five months took four or five years. The removal of the delays and the costs has benefited ratepayers and development in London, and will lead to a more prosperous London than we have enjoyed historically.
As we look around, we can see Government policies creating great benefit for Londoners in education, housing and health. Let us consider health for a moment. Trust hospitals like the Royal Free are treating many more

patients than they did before. The Tomlinson report will lead to a much better level of general practitioner services in inner London. That will lead to a better, not a poorer, health service.
In housing, we have seen many hundreds of thousands of Londoners become home owners. Tonight there are more vacant beds in hostels in central London than there are people sleeping rough in the centre. We know that many thousands of council houses are empty in certain Labour-controlled boroughs which deprive people of the chance of having homes of their own. It ill behoves the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) to complain about housing in his borough when he knows that for every council house it sells in the coming financial year it can use the capital receipts to build another house or give the money to a housing association.

Mr. Corbyn: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will tell us the whole story—that the discount which the council will have to allow is up to £50,000 per property, so it is impossible on the income from sales to replace the houses that are sold. The hon. Gentleman should tell the House the truth, that what one is doing is selling off the housing assets of London.

Mr. Marshall: One is not selling off the housing assets because the houses do not disappear. The families who lived in them before are still living in them. Islington is getting an opportunity to build new houses which would be available immediately for letting, and people would not have to wait many years for the present tenants to die or leave their homes.
One could say much more about the great education advances under the Government. Hendon school—one of the first to become a grant-maintained school—is heavily over-subscribed, which did not happen when it was a local authority school. One could compare the growth in popularity of that school with the complete failure of Highbury Grove school in Islington, which was once a popular school and over-subscribed. When my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson) was its headmaster, it was a successful school. Today, under the Labour-controlled Islington council it is a disgrace, as the hon. Member for Islington, North will know.

Mr. Corbyn: Has the hon. Gentleman visited it?

Mr. Marshall: I visited it when Mr. Norcross was the headmaster and it was successful then. As we know, it has been condemned now by the inspectors and even by some of the hon. Gentleman's friends in Islington.
I realise that the spokesmen for the two Front Benches have much to say, and it would be wrong of me to deprive them of the opportunity. I hope that I have given the House a few examples of how Government policies are benefiting Londoners, who can compare the efficiency of Barnet with the inefficiency of Lambeth. They can compare the school results of Barnet with those of Labour-controlled councils. Wherever they look, they will find that Conservative councils give good services at much less cost than Labour-controlled councils.

Mr. Tony Banks: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) on securing the pole position for this slot. I often wonder whether this is the way to do it at this time of night.


Government policies in London and the south-east are certainly an important subject. I hope that the Government will examine carefully the possibility of giving us an all-day debate on London and the south-east so that perhaps more hon. Members can participate and we will have a little more time to discuss the important issues.
My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow talked about decline in the east end. That is something that I know well, coming from an east end constituency. He mentioned begging and sleeping on the streets. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) mentioned the same situation.
The housing crisis in London is critical. I know from my own constituency case-load that housing has become the predominant issue with which I must deal. It now takes up perhaps 60 per cent. plus of all the constituency cases with which I deal. Indeed, one need only see the number of people who are homeless or in bed-and-breakfast and temporary accommodation to realise how dire the problem is. The hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) mentioned that people are able to purchase their own homes and how good that was as a Government policy. He must realise that more than 1 million people are living in homes with negative equity, of whom the largest concentration will be in London and the south-east.
The hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) attacked the London county council and the houses it had built. I must remind him that that council built some of the finest public sector housing in the world, and it is acknowledged as such. It gave people the first opportunity in London to have decent, sanitary housing. It was a matter of great pride that the Labour party played such a prominent role in achieving that for Londoners—at a time when Conservative politicians also supported the housing policies of the London county council. Since I am old enough now, I remember the days when rival leaders of the two main political parties used to vie with one another to brag about who built the most homes. I would willingly see such a contest being entered again, rather than having the situation which exists in the east end, around London and in other parts of the country.
My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow mentioned begging—the young people who beg on the streets of London. It is a disgrace. When I go round the streets of London, I feel ashamed to see so many young people begging. It always comes back to me that it was the present Prime Minister, when he was the Minister for Social Security, who cut off all benefits for 16 and 17-year-olds. He need walk only a few yards from 10 Downing street or the Palace of Westminster to see some of the appalling impact of that dreadful decision to cut off benefits for young people.
We had much discussion from my hon. Friends, including my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson), about unemployment in London. Since the slump began in April 1990, unemployment in London has risen from about 200,000 to approaching 500,000. The increase in unemployment in London has been greater than in any other region in the European Community. That is a reflection of the way in which the

Government's mismanagement of the economy has led to the United Kingdom performing much worse than all comparable countries in the current difficult times.
It is a reflection of a longer period of neglect by the Government. We look back to 1979 when the Conservative party gained office. At that time, unemployment in London was substantially below the national average. It stood at 2·7 per cent. in June 1979, compared with a national rate of only 4 per cent. under the Labour Government. Since that time, through both downswings and upswings in the economy, London's position relative to the national average has deteriorated. In June 1979, London's unemployment rate was 67 per cent. of the national average. By 1985, it stood at 81 per cent. of the national average. As my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow said, London's unemployment rate rose above the national average in October 1991, for the first time since records have been kept, and now stands at 11·7 per cent., compared with a national rate of 10·4 per cent.
It is evident that under Conservative Governments, London has been allowed to slide into long-term decline. London has been hit hard by the current slump because the problems that developed in its economy in the 1980s were allowed to fester and grow. Therefore, London was in no position to weather the renewed onslaught of recession.
I shall touch on just a few of the problems. There was a devastating loss of manufacturing employment in the 1980s. From 1985 to 1990, half of all the maufacturing jobs lost in Britain were in London. As a result, London has a warped, unbalanced economy. It relied too heavily on the boom in the finance sector, which gave the impression that all was well. As my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow said, when the finance sector caught cold, London suffered severely.
Other problems are transport chaos, collapsing rail services and clogged roads. As my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North said, the air is unfit to breathe. Those are major deterrents to international businesses considering locating in London, as well as to tourists. London's chronically inefficient labour market fails to supply enough workers with high-level skills, yet traps thousands in poverty. During the boom in the late 1980s, when London employers were desperately short of labour, there were never fewer than 200,000 people unemployed in the city. Low-quality Government training programmes offer no solution to the problem. They dump people on the labour market with low levels of skill, where there is already an over-supply of labour. They fail to offer routes upwards to higher levels of skill.
My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow mentioned how the impact of unemployment hits different communities in a different fashion. Unemployment in parts of London is as bad as anywhere else in the United Kingdom. Among young blacks, for example, unemployment in parts of the inner London boroughs now touches 70 and 80 per cent. So it is not surprising that there is so much social unrest. There is no justification for crime or for people taking the law into their own hands, but if we cut off large numbers of people from having any stake or say in the way in which society is run, it is not surprising that social problems proliferate.
My hon. Friends all mentioned transport in London. It is crucial. We have the most expensive urban transport system in Europe. The frustration of everyday travel in


London is apparent to all of us who use public transport in the city. The frustration of bus and railway workers has reached boiling-over point.
My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow mentioned the destaffing of British Rail stations. He mentioned Walthamstow Central station. I could also mention Forest Gate station, which I use daily. As a result of destaffing, there is violence and vandalism. My hon. Friend mentioned fare evasion. Yes, fare evasion is happening all over London. British Rail and London Underground are losing millions of pounds in fares because stations have been destaffed. There is no economic sense in that, if one thinks about it for a moment. It certainly leads to higher levels of vandalism and violence. That is why many Londoners, particularly women, are frightened to use London's transport system, especially late at night.
Privatisation of British Rail will inevitably lead to station closures in London and the south-east. In preparation for privatisation, workers on London buses are being told that if they want to keep their jobs, they will have to take big cuts in wages. I should like to see Conservative Members be prepared to accept that proposition with any degree of equanimity. No wonder the frustration has boiled over into industrial action, which started a few minutes ago. It will lead to great inconvenience for all people who want to use public transport in the capital city.
Although people do not like being inconvenienced by strikes, the majority of Londoners will support the action taken by transport workers in the capital. They know what those workers have to put up with. In the end, if one is ignored and treated with contempt one can only take action to demonstrate one's strength of feeling. All right-thinking Londoners will be on the side of the workers taking industrial action tomorrow. They have been forced into action by Government policies. The transport policy in London is driven by ideology.
I remember that the Prime Minister was once rejected—I might add, wisely—by London Transport as a bus conductor. It seems to me that he is now trying to gain his revenge by dismantling the whole transport system within the capital city.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dowd)—who I congratulate on launching his petition, which will be signed by many Londoners, calling for a new directly elected authority—mentioned the Confederation of British Industry figure of £10 billion annual cost arising from the congestion in London and the south-east. The answer is not to build more roads—we will come on to that in the debate that follows this one. The way to deal with congestion in London is to improve public transport. That is obviously the thing to do.
The Government have said that they are in favour of a number of schemes, but we have not seen very much action in terms of getting those schemes up and working. There is the Channel tunnel fast rail link—ha-ha; fancy calling it a fast rail link; it will not be built until the next century. It has made us the laughing stock of Europe. Then there is crossrail, which is so desperately needed in London, and the Jubilee line extension. How many more times will the Government dine out on the announcement that they have given their approval to the Jubilee line extension? When is it going to happen is the question that Londoners want

answered. A prosperous economy requires a modern, efficient transport infrastructure. Frankly, if we do not recognise that, we will not recognise anything at all.
My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) mentioned the east Thames corridor, which will be started in Stratford. We welcome the announcement and we will enter, with the Government, into the consultation process, because we think that there are many things to be gained for London and the south-east from this initiative, but there are also many environmental considerations and other matters that have to be taken into account.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West also talked about the governance of London. He said that 31 March marked the seventh anniversary of the end of the Greater London council. We are the only capital city in the world without citywide government. We have no elected strategic body, but we have myriad unelected quangos and indirectly elected bodies trying to deal with London's strategic needs.
My hon. Friend mentioned the London Forum—another bunch of largely Tory business men. There are so many business men with Tory inclinations being appointed to these quangos that I am not really surprised that British business is so bad. If some of these business men spent a bit more time running their businesses instead of trying to run the affairs that ought to be run by locally elected members, Britain would be in a far better situation than it is in today.
The launch of the London Forum took place last Monday at a breakfast that I understand cost the taxpayers £15,000. Some breakfast! Perhaps the Minister would like to tell us what was on the menu.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West also mentioned the police authority—another strategic body that has been set up by the Government. We welcome this announcement. Again, we will join in the consultation process. I was on the GLC when it set up its police committee and proposed an elected police authority for London. We were denounced. Indeed, there was not a great deal of support for it among certain leading members of the Labour party at that time. But, of course, now it has come into our own election manifesto, it is supported by senior police officers, and it has been partially embraced by the Conservative Government. We welcome that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West also mentioned the county hall. It was a studied and deliberate political insult to London to allow a Japanese leisure group to propose turning county hall into a luxury hotel. The London School of Economics wanted to use it as its new base, but that was rejected by the Government. In many ways, it is symptomatic of the entire direction in which this county is going—failing to support one of the world's most eminent academic institutions and flogging it off to the Japanese to turn into a hotel. But there is a long way to go before county hall is turned into a hotel and I will use whatever influence I have to get a commitment to secure it as the natural home of a new strategic authority for London.
I say from the Dispatch Box tonight that it remains a firm commitment of the Labour party in government to establish the Greater London authority. London needs an elected voice, a body to stand up for and speak for Londoners, to restore our sense of identity in the capital


city. The Greater London authority will do just that, and the next Labour Government will make the setting up of a new authority a real political priority.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tony Baldry): I congratulate the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) on introducing this important debate. However, Londoners will make their own judgment on Labour's continuing support for strikes and hankering for the return of the Greater London council.
It may be helpful if we look at some realities. London and the south-east have always been central to Britain's economic vitality. The region provides employment for about 7 million people and home to more than 600,000 businesses accounting for some 40 per cent. of our nation's gross domestic product. London itself is a world class financial centre and accounts for some three quarters of the financial and business activity in the country.
In recent years, as the world recession has impacted, the economic pre-eminence of the south-east region has been challenged and the legendary resilience of its economy has been considerably tested. The recession has had a considerable impact on London and the south-east, but we should not forget that this setback developed from a very high starting point. London and the south-east benefited hugely from the 1980s expansion. I firmly believe that the region's infrastructure, industry and economy are now well positioned for London and the south-east once again to take advantage of recovery, which all the signs indicate is imminent.
We are committed to rebuilding confidence in the south-east and London and to restoring their position as the powerhouse of the United Kingdom economy. A return to growth in London and the south-east will be the trigger for growth nation wide.
Our policies for economic growth provide the framework to ensure sustained recovery. They contain many elements which will be of particular benefit to London and the south-east. The autumn statement made clear our determination to give the highest possible priority to capital programmes; that will promote recovery and long-term economic prosperity.
The Budget reinforced our commitment to growth and the revival of enterprise. We now have an economic environment of low inflation and low interest rates and a tax regime which favours recovery. The south-east and London should be exceptionally able to benefit from these policies. London in particular, as a world capital and key international centre for business, culture and tourism, should be able to take advantage of them and enhance its position in future. We are committed to seeing that London maintains its pre-eminence, and that our policies continue to foster its international standing in all those areas in which it so clearly excels. My right hon. Friend, the Chancellor's Budget will ensure lasting recovery. It will boost business this year and tackle Government borrowing in the years ahead. Infrastructure projects in London and the south-east featured prominently in the Budget and fiscal measures such as the boost for export credits will see British business leading the way to recovery.

Ms Diane Abbott: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Baldry: The hon. Lady arrived very late in the debate, but in the spirit of Easter I will certainly give way to her.

Ms Abbott: I am grateful to the Minister and I hope that he has an extra large Easter egg on Easter Sunday. However, my point is serious. The Treasury, the Governor of the Bank of England and the seven wise men—the seven economists advising the Government—are prophesying a recovery, but they are also predicting continuing unemployment at around 3 million. What are the Government planning to do about the structural unemployment in London, particularly in areas such as Hackney, Newham and the inner city?

Mr. Baldry: The hon. Lady could hardly imagine that I would be responding to the debate this evening without mentioning our policies to tackle unemployment. If she is patient, I will come to that in due order in my speech. It would be suprising if I did not approach that subject.
Our policies to help industry go beyond those concerned with the economy. Our aim is to create the right environment for businesses to prosper so that they can create jobs. We shall continue in our drive to reduce the burden on industry by identifying and preserving only the regulation which is genuinely needed. We want businesses to be freer to do what they do best—creating the wealth and jobs on which the nation depends.
We also recognise the major part that small firms can play in securing economic health. Our policies offer a wide range of assistance to such companies—access to low-cost consultancy expertise, financial help for innovation and research, and support in looking for export markets. Those are practical demonstrations of our determination to help business, in London and the south-east as elsewhere.
Further support is offered through the training and enterprise councils, the TECs, which aim to ensure that their services to small businesses are employee led, fully in line with local needs and of the highest possible quality. TECs operate business support schemes for small and medium-sized companies throughout London and the south-east.

Mr. Corbyn: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Baldry: I shall not give way because hon. Members raised many issues in this three-hour debate and if I do not respond to them hon. Members will simply complain that the Government did not have the courtesy to do so.
The value of the policies that the Government have pursued has been recognised not only here, but overseas as well. A large number of foreign-owned companies have been attracted to the United Kingdom. London and the south-east are now host to well over 1,000 United States companies, more than 100 Japanese ones and more than 750 from mainland Europe. No other European Community member state can rival Britain's record in attracting inward investment. Such investment might well be curtailed if the Opposition had their way on the social charter. Those companies range from research and development operations, headquarters organisations to high growth, high productivity manufacturing and


production centres. Such good quality inward investment is obviously of local benefit and can create, directly and indirectly, much-needed jobs.
My right hon. Friend the Chancellor stated in his Budget speech that he would estabish a special tax regime from 1994–95 to assist foreign-owned companies who wish to set up their headquarters here. So our policies will continue to ensure that for London and the south-east, as elsewhere, we provide the right conditions for enterprise and business to prosper, to create wealth and to create jobs.
We are determined to continue to combat unemployment. Last month the Secretary of State for Employment was able to announce a fall in seasonally adjusted unemployment of nearly 6,000 in London and the south-east region. Clearly, we should be careful not to read too much into one month's figures, but that is still encouraging news.
The Employment Service currently has a budget nationwide of some £360 million, an increase of approximately a quarter on that of the previous year. Day in, day out, the Employment Service helps people into employment. The south-east programme budget of the Employment Service for the coming year will be nearly three times that for the previous year and now stands at nearly £25 million. The availability of a highly trained work force is essential to a healthy economy. The 17 independent, business-led TECs in London and the south-east have a core strategy to expand the skill base of the local work force, thereby forecasting economic growth within their local community. The TECs have taken over responsibility for youth training and the new training for work initiative. In February, nearly 50,000 young people were on youth training in London and the south-east. Three quarters of those who complete their training go on to jobs, further training or education and more than half those who complete their planned training gain a qualification.
As well as investing money in youth training, £180 million will be spent in London and the south-east on training for adults. As well as good training, a good transport system is also vital for the economic and social well-being of London and the south-east. Good transport has a key role to play in sustaining and encouraging employment. That is why we attach the highest priority to improving, modernising and, where appropriate, expanding the transport infrastructure throughout London and the south-east.
The announcements in the Budget were excellent news for public transport, because they made clear our commitment to securing the future of those projects of vital importance to the region's infrastructure—the Heathrow express, the channel tunnel rail link and crossrail. The £300 million Heathrow express project is an example of a joint venture between the public and private sectors, with the bulk of the finance coming from the British Airports Authority. It will further enhance Heathrow's position as the world's leading international hub. It will mean that all three of London's main airports will be served by fast, direct rail links.
We have recently announced our willingness to provide substantial public sector support for the construction of a high-speed rail link between the channel tunnel and central London. We are also examining the crossrail scheme, to link Paddington and Liverpool Street stations, with a view to maximising private sector involvement, so that can also

proceed as a joint venture. Construction is ready to start on the Jubilee line extension, once the promised private sector contributions from property owners have been secured.
Other potential projects in the planning stage are the new underground line between Chelsea and Hackney, an extension to the east London line, a big expansion of Thameslink to improve Network SouthEast's north-south services across London, the docklands light railway extension to Lewisham and the Croydon tramlink.

Mr. Tony Banks: We have heard all that before, and we support many of the transport infrastructure decisions, but when are we going to see some of them? How much longer will we have to wait for the Jubilee line extension, which seems to be closest to an agreement? Can the Minister give us any idea when the agreement will be signed?

Mr. Baldry: The hon. Member has heard the stories before, and will hear them again. It is important that Opposition Members appreciate the good news in London and the south-east. I have absolutely no doubt that those major infrastructure projects will start in the near future. In today's debate on London and the south-east, not one Opposition Member even mentioned the fact that the channel tunnel—perhaps the largest ever major civil engineering project in this country—was due to open later this year. Opposition Members are completely blind to any good news there might be in London and the south-east; they simply do not wish to share it with the House. If the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr Banks) is patient, he will see that we shall be bringing forward the Jubilee line and other major infrastructure projects in the near future. We attach enormous importance to improving transport infrastructure. In London alone, our investment in transport is running at about £2 billion per year, out of a total Department of Transport budget of £7 billion.
There is a clear Government commitment to improving and developing the transport system within the region. To achieve that objective, we are pursuing policies which allow the different transport modes to play their part in responding efficiently to the needs of London and south-east. We are determined to harness the resources and expertise of both the public and private sectors. Just as we are determined to improve the transport infrastructure, we are also determined to improve infrastructure generally and to ensure that every family in London and the south-east has a decent home in which to live.
During last year, the housing market in the south-east continued to be severely affected by the recession. In his autumn statement, the Chancellor announced a huge cash boost to the market. Some £580 million of new money was provided to enable housing associations to purchase new, empty or repossessed homes, to use for the homeless families and others in housing need. Some £200 million of that money has been spent in London, where the pressures have been particularly acute. The housing association sector has responded magnificently to that opportunity. In just 19 weeks, associations throughout London have purchased more than 4,000 homes. Those empty dwellings were clogging up the housing market, and many homeless families have been able to move straight into them. That is helping to alleviate the homelessness problem in


London, and further reducing the use of undesirable bed-and-breakfast accommodation, as well as freeing up the whole housing market.
The Chancellor also announced a further £50 million for grants to help up to 3,500 tenants of housing associations and local authorities to buy and move into homes in the private sector. Most of those resources are being spent in London. As a consequence of the relaxation of the capital receipts rules, £500 million of extra capital resources is being invested in housing in London boroughs, which means more money for home refurbishment and estate action.
Seven of the 13 London urban programme boroughs have been successful in their bids for city challenge funding—an average of £37·5 million per borough, and a total investment through city challenge of well over £1,500 million. The Opposition did not say one word about any city challenge projects, either in their constituencies or boroughs, or in London as a whole. With that investment we shall reclaim almost 200 hectares of valuable inner-city land which is currently lying derelict or contaminated; we shall improve or build 12,500 homes; we shall start 2,500 businesses; we shall bring into use nearly 500,000 sq ft of business and commercial floor space; perhaps most importantly, we shall preserve more than 11,000 jobs which might otherwise have been at risk and open up nearly 20,000 new job opportnities.
Our policies for the south-east will need to be reflected in the region's planning regime. Last week, we published regional planning guidance for the south-east in which we laid special emphasis on the east Thames corridor, which provides a focus for long-term growth in the region by recycling mainly urban and derelict land without the need to encroach further on the green belt.
London has outstanding assets as a business centre and unrivalled attractions as a place to live and visit. Like all world cities, it has formidable strengths and we are determined to build on those strengths. We have great confidence in London and the south-east. We are determined to ensure that the area will once again lead Britain, Europe and the world out of recession and into recovery. We have confidence in our policies, and when the electors again have the chance to test the Government, I am sure that they will once again return a Conservative Government, committed to ensuring the continuing revival and growth of London and the south-east.

Orders of the Day — M25 (Link Roads)

Mr. Peter Ainsworth: Were this not a matter of great concern to my constituents and people throughout the south-east and further afield, I might feel some embarassment about raising it tonight. It is, after all, only some two months since I had cause to detain my hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic over the same issue. In saying how grateful I am to see him here tonight, at this late hour, I must also say that I can offer no apology for asking the House to return to the matter of the M25 and the proposed link roads. In so doing, I hope to give some of my hon. Friends the opportunity to make known their views on an issue that is of importance and concern to their constituents. I know that my hon. Friends have taken a keen interest in the matter, and that includes my hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor), who, for family reasons, is not able to be here tonight.
Although it is a matter of deep personal concern to people whose lives, homes, villages, fields and woodlands are directly affected by the proposals, it raises wider issues about transport policy, planning policy, environmental policy and the relationship between all of them. We know that roads and cars are vital to the development of our economy. We know that an efficient transport infrastructure in the south-east—I listened with interest to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment speaking on that in the previous debate—is important not only regionally but nationally. We know that roads and road traffic will continue to play a key role in that. We know that millions of people regard almost as a right the freedom to travel by car, as and when they choose. We know that all commentators agree that demand for road transport, if unchecked, will increase substantially between now and the second decade of the next century.
We also know that roads and cars are damaging to the environment. They are damaging in a local, practical way. When one builds a new road, one inevitably tarmacs over part of a field or somebody's garden, and affects homes and property. In this instance, We are talking about road-widening proposals for green belt land, but there is global damage as well, through emissions of carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxide and carbon dioxide.
We know also that cars are bad for human health. Much more work needs to be done in that area, but, as I said to my hon. Friend when we last discussed these matters, it is not necessary to have a Phd in chemistry to work out that cars damage human health. We are all aware of the tragic consequences that can arise from a running engine in a confined space. I remind the House that in 1990 there were 19 million private vehicles licensed for use on this overcrowded island, and that car traffic had reached 331 billion km a year. Department of Transport forecasts are that those figures will grow by up to 75 per cent. by the year 2015.
These are major issues. My hon. Friend will know that they have been given a thorough treatment in a document entitled "Cars and the Environment: a view to the year 2020", published by the Royal Automobile Club's foundation for motoring and the environment. The fact that a motoring organisation is giving serious thought to these issues is indicative of the way in which the debate about transport and the environment is developing. I am sure that my hon. Friend agrees that it is vital that the


Department of Transport should be at the forefront of new thinking on these matters and not stuck with an accepted wisdom that fails to recognise changing attitudes and new needs.
It is not an exaggeration to say that one of the greatest challenges facing us as we move towards the millennium is that of reconciling environmental health and transport policies. New technologies will undoubtedly help, but the greatest help would be a change in philosophy at the Department. I believe that the link roads concept fails to meet the problem, because it addresses only the problem of traffic congestion, and that in isolation from other issues. It fails, too, because we know that wider roads have a habit of becoming filled by traffic as the years pass, creating greater traffic jams, more pollution, further pressure for more tarmac in the green belt and more environmental damage.
I am delighted that since our previous debate on these issues there has been a positive development. I warmly welcome my hon. Friend's announcement a few days ago that the Department will be introducing variable automatic speed limits between junctions 11 and 15 on the M25. My hon. Friend will recall that I urged the introduction of just such measures in February. He will know, therefore, how much I,welcome his announcement. In Germany and Holland, similar systems have proven that the capacity of motorways can be increased by up to about 10 per cent. They ease traffic flow and reduce the risk of accidents and attendant congestion.
I know that my hon. Friend has tolling much in mind. If road tolls are introduced with sufficient flexibility to the busiest part of the M25, I am sure that they could have a major impact on congestion. The majority of cars are on the motorway for short journeys, and it was not built to take that sort of traffic. The fact that it must do so is a major cause of congestion and of the problems that my hon. Friend is seeking to deal with through his link road proposals. The careful introduction of tolling could well keep local traffic on local roads, thereby freeing the motorway for the trunk journeys for which it was intended.
I know also that my hon. Friend may take the view that failure to tackle congestion on the M25 will make life progressively worse on adjacent roads. I share that concern. There was an incident in my constituency a week or so ago that led to the entire motorway being blocked to traffic. That was the result of a possible terrorist-related incident. The amount of traffic that immediately flowed on to the A25 and other surrounding roads caused severe problems for local people using those roads. I share my hon. Friend's concern about shifting traffic off the motorway and on to local roads. I fully understand his point of view.
Equally, it is important to bear in mind the wider issues that I mentioned. There must be a case for seeing the effect that advanced management systems and tolling have on congestion before proceeding with the development of a 14-lane highway in a crude attempt to satisfy a rising tide of demand that cannot in truth be satisfied.
Let us consider also the regional aspects of my hon. Friend's proposals, which conflict with a regional planning strategy that has been carefully developed over many years to promote development in the east of the region. The west is already crowded. I fear that if that link roads proposal is implemented, that overcrowding will become more severe.
My hon. Friend knows that his link roads proposal is not welcome by Surrey county council, other local authorities, or SERPLAN. Large sums of public money have been spent developing a coherent and balanced regional strategy under the auspices of the Department of the Environment. The link roads proposal does not complement that in any way, but runs counter to it.
One criticism of the link roads proposal and other plans for expanding the motorway's capacity is that they are being developed on a piecemeal basis. Sections of the motorway are being considered in isolation. It is always difficult to develop a coherent, overall strategy if one takes a piecemeal approach, but it is nigh on impossible in the case of an orbital road. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to reconsider reviewing the motorway in its entirety. To approach it on a piecemeal basis is further to cut across the developed approach to regional planning.
I ask my hon. Friend to think carefully before making further announcements about the link roads and to bear in mind the points that I raised. I do not raise them glibly but because they reflect the views of locally elected representatives of all parties, local government officers, and the views of many whose lives will be immediately and practically affected by the plans.
My concerns are shared by a growing number of people further afield. They include road users such as myself, who understand the economic importance of road traffic but who are afraid that simple road widening, even on the massive scale envisaged by my hon. Friend the Minister, offers no lasting solution to the present difficulties but instead offers what we should most seek to avoid—a poisoned bequest to our children and to future generations.

Mr. Mark Wolfson: I congratulate my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Ainsworth), on securing this debate and giving a number of us an opportunity to bring to the attention of the House the concerns of our constituents and ourselves about proposals by my hon. Friend the Minister and his Department for link roads around the M25.
I owe my hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic an apology, because for the second time in a week I am keeping him from his bed. Earlier this week, when we were all here overnight, my sonorous breathing in the Library disturbed him. Tonight, we are keeping him out of his bed again. We all know that a Minister's life is a dog's life—or some of it, anyway.
I understand the priorities of my hon. Friend the Minister in respect of the M25. He has the job of keeping the main arterial road around London open and flowing with traffic moving at a reasonable speed. I appreciate that he must make plans to try to deal with the ever-increasing density of traffic on the road, and that, if he does not take some action—now and in future—the traffic flow will seize up.
Others will speak for themselves, but for my part I accept—albeit reluctantly—the need to widen the existing M25 to four lanes within the existing boundaries. However, I want to emphasise my concern, and that of my local authority and constituents. We are worried about the effect on the current environmental safeguards. We have all seen central grassed or hedge lanes of motorways being concreted over. I do not know what the Department's


policy is, but I should like to know. Will all the green strips down the centre of motorways eventually be removed in favour of concrete and crash barriers, which will have a much harsher environmental impact?
There is also concern about the existing environmental controls provided by banks and trees within the hedged or fenced limits of the motorway. What will happen to them when the motorway is widened to four lanes? What are the Department's intentions, and how will those environmental safeguards be replaced and, indeed, improved? Current thinking on environmental safeguards is now very much more sophisticated than it was when the road was first built. Will there be sound barriers, and will new trees be planted? Is it right for the Department to try to widen the road within the existing limits, rather than enlarging its land-take to provide the space for adequate noise and air-pollution barriers for the future?
What is the current policy on the width of lanes? When the four-lane widening was first proposed, we were told that the widths of lanes would differ, the widest being on the outside and the narrowest closest to the kerb. That strikes me as a rather dangerous proposal. Will drivers know the width of the lane that they happen to be driving in? Perhaps the idea has been thrown out.

Sir Michael Grylls: My hon. Friend mentioned trees, which are important in environmental terms. All those green blobs on the maps look very good, and one imagines that a wonderful forest will appear overnight; but, in fact, those blobs will not become trees for 30 or 40 years—for several generations. It is not really a solution.

Mr. Wolfson: I entirely agree. Moreover, if the motorway is widened to four lanes, the trees that have already been planted on the verges may have to go, in which case we shall have to start again from scratch. How does the Department propose to deal with that? As I have said, I reluctantly accept that the road may have to be widened immediately; none the less, I want some answers from the Minister.
Implacable local opposition to the link road proposals is building up. There is great worry about the proposal that, running through green belt country—some of it of outstanding natural beauty—there should be a 14-lane highway. It is a terrifying prospect.
One sees a comparable width of tarmac only in America, particularly in Los Angeles. If I am wrong, I look forward to the Minister correcting me, giving examples of where 14-lane highways in Britain have been landscaped and telling me that we do not need to worry about them. I shall take a lot of convincing on that score. Such an intrusion into very attractive countryside is an appalling prospect.
Due to the lateness of the hour, the full picture is not emerging of the mounting concern of hon. Members and local authorities throughout the circumference of the M25. Those who are participating in this debate are the ones who may face difficulties during the earliest stages of the proposals. As my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, East said, we are not happy about planning applications for the proposals being submitted on a piecemeal basis. We believe that the only fair way of bringing this matter

properly to the attention of the public is to look at the road as a whole, as part of the strategic planning for London and the south-east.
I am concerned, too, about the effect on work and living patterns which widening the road, and in particular building the link roads, will have. Where will this end? It is a short-term solution which, over the next 20 years, might deal with the overcrowding, but if, during those 20 years, we continue to make it easy for people to live in Surrey and work in Hertfordshire, more of them will do so. We shall therefore add to the problem. We must think about population growth, where the jobs will be and whether, in the 21st century, it will make sense to encourage people to travel the distances that they now travel to work, using the road network.
When my hon. Friends and I talk to people who work in our constituencies, we find that often they tell us that they have not moved house because they are now able to get round the M25, even though they may have to start very early in the morning and put up with the great congestion on the road. It allows them to follow their present work and living pattern. What sense does it make to allow that process to continue? It will lead to the same problem all over again in 20 years' time. A 14-lane motorway and its link roads will no longer be adequate; we shall have to create a 20-lane, or more, motorway. We shall be no further forward.
As for noise barriers, is it proposed that better noise protection barriers will be provided? I am pleased that the Department of Transport now accepts that different road surfaces produce different levels of noise. Before my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr. Carlisle) became a Department of Transport Minister I remember writing letters to the Department asking whether its officials were aware that some surfaces were quieter than others. They wrote back and said that their experts had told them that there was no difference in the noise level. We were not experts. We were common or garden people, but we could tell that there was a difference. At last, the Department, with or without its expert advice, has accepted that there is a difference and is promoting quieter road surfaces. However, they are not being promoted fast enough. The materials that lead to lower noise levels should be used not just on new roads but on roads that are resurfaced. One of the banes of modern life, which can turn heaven into absolute hell for many of my constituents, is to have a very noisy road running close by. There is no doubt at all that the plans for the M25, as they stand, will result in a horrifying increase in the level of noise.
On the question of noise barriers, we look to experience abroad, where, it appears, there is a much greater readiness to provide new and different types of barrier. Motorways on the outskirts of Paris and those running past other French towns have very tall barriers, and different wall angles are used to break up noise. Then, to disguise the ugliness of the barriers, trees and creepers are planted. There is much more advanced development than has been achieved in this country so far. My expectation is that Kent will follow the good example of Surrey, where parts of the M25 have wooden noise barriers already. We have never had any such things in Kent. I do not know whose fault that is, though I can happily say that the situation arose before I became a Member of Parliament. However, we will try to learn and to see that very much better barriers and bunds are provided in the future.
There is an absolute need for a clear transport strategy in connection with the M25 proposals. The Government must consider, and there must be a public debate about, the balance between road and rail, between bus, train and car. I welcome the proposals for road pricing and the recent announcement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport about the possibility of tagging a motorist as a means of measuring the amount of time he spends, for example, driving on London roads and the distance covered. These are sensible policies. We must move from a situation in which people are not immediately aware of the cost of a car journey, as they are aware of the cost of a train journey when they buy a ticket. Only after having met much of the cost of running a car does the motorist buy the petrol, which is the only immediately apparent cost. If we are to control the use of cars, it will be necessary to make a more immediate charge for the use of congested roads. The idea of congestion pricing makes good sense to me.
I want to deal with the question of public transport, which has to be considered in balance with private transport. I call for renewed priority to be given to improvement of the public transport system in London as a corollary to limiting the intrusion of link roads into the countryside in the area of the M25. In the debate on an earlier topic, an Opposition Member quoted a recent CBI survey which suggests that traffic congestion in London costs industry £10 billion a year. As I am a realist in respect of these matters, I do not expect that there will be an opportunity to prevent traffic congestion, however good the public transport system may be. However, there is a good deal of room to make the public transport system in London more comparable with the systems in other capital cities. Paris is the one that I know particularly well. In that city there are at least four highly developed forms of rail transport—the 19th century railway system; the high-speed railways, which run directly into the capital; the metro system, which is comparable to our tube; and the RER high-speed trains, which criss-cross the city at 60 mph. The parallel proposals here are for crossrail and the line from Heathrow to central London.
Those proposals are only a beginning—such services have existed in Paris for 20 years or more. The French had major problems about, among other things, the environment when establishing their services, but they went ahead. I appreciate the fact that French law allows central Government greater freedom to make final decisions than is the case here.
Having used the French system, I know how good it is in comparison with ours. I also know that, year by year, London's public transport system is falling behind that of our continental competitors—and they are competitors. Whatever our political views, we must accept that a good public transport system is an absolute necessity for a capital city which wants to stay in the world class for business.
There are proper interchanges in Paris. The suburban stations on the RER lines have been developed, and bus routes run out to residential areas. The whole system is integrated in a way that we have so far not been able to achieve, so I welcome the appointment of a Minister with responsibility for transport in London. The appointment was long overdue and very necessary.
As a corollary to asking for a more integrated approach to the particular proposals for the M25 link roads, we

must accept that it will be necessary to increase investment in public transport in and around London to prevent the countryside from being literally swamped by concrete pathways for the motor car, which would still not enable people to go about their daily business on a decent system.

Sir Geoffrey Pattie: I speak as a keen user of motorways. If I can escape the traffic congestion, I hope to be using a motorway in a few hours, and I do not need the Minister, now or at any other time, to extol the virtues of rapid motor vehicle surface benefits.
The Department of Transport talks of adding another lane to the M25. My hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson) reminded us that even increasing the number of lanes from three to four involves certain hazards. Without meaning to, the Department has done us a great service. Its link road proposals are sufficiently grotesque—adding another six lanes to what will be eight lanes—will force many people, including me, to say that, although there have been considerable benefits to be had from motorway travel until now, what will happen when we fill up the six new lanes, as we shall? Will we have another six and another six after that?
The policy appears to be to have a bypass around this, an extension to that, and an extra lane somewhere else. Successive Governments have done the same. I sympathise with the Minister because the main problem is to know when it is time to call a halt and recognise that we are heading into the proverbial cul-de-sac. We are not in the Australian outback or the Nevada desert; we are a small country with a finite resource. The image that people have of this green and pleasant land is not one of motorways but of fields, hedgerows and downs, which are relentlessly being eaten up.
I must tell my hon. Friend the Minister that there is nothing remotely resembling personal criticism of him, and no offence meant, when I talk about "the Department". I know from experience in government how difficult it is for anyone holding ministerial office to be able to initiate a review of policy, but I have to ask whether even the Department of Transport is capable of producing what I think we need, which is a new transport policy to take us through not only the rest of the decade—it is too late for that—but into the next century.
For example, is the Department of Transport capable of integrating the road and rail aspects of transport? We have my hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic—how grateful we are that he is here tonight—and we have a Minister for Public Transport, who is responsible for rail transport. We should feel more comfortable if the Department of Transport issued a proclamation that it was examining the future transport needs of the south-east, and of the whole country. We are focusing on the M25 tonight, but if what I am saying has any force at all, it has equal force anywhere in the country. I am talking about considering transport as an integrated activity.
My hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Ainsworth), who initiated the debate so excellently, said that there was a sense of growing unease among many people, and not only in the south-east. That unease is not simply the predictable kind, which enables Departments and civil servants to say, "Oh, well, let us give them some compensation, because some people's houses will be affected," and the other standard stuff that we always hear


when a bypass is going through a housing estate, or whatever. The unease that people feel about current proposals is different; it is deeper. People are really starting to ask whether we have reached the point in transport development at which basic questions have to be asked and answered.
How will we move people about in the first decade of the next century and beyond? As my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks explained so well, the existence of the M25 has made possible a whole series of journeys that were never possible before. Someone can live in Braintree, for example, and work near Guildford; and there are many such permutations. Who am I to say that that is wrong? But it has drawn traffic in. When the Department of Transport sees that, its answer is, "We must provide more facilities: let us widen the road so that even more cars can come on to the motorway.
"
That represents one of the rare examples that I can think of in this country of our not providing market mechanisms such as tolls. On a personal note, I must admit that I am one of the people whom my hon. Friend the Minister and his proposals are trying to get at. I frequently get on to the M25 and leave it at the next exit, because my constituency of Chertsey and Walton is situated precisely between exits 10 and 11. If I had to pay £25, or whatever, for the privilege at peak time, I might think twice about doing that.
In the past two weeks the Minister has produced what seems, prima facie, a sensible proposal—to manage the flow of traffic with speed restrictions. But I ask him to consider the results. Apparently the proposal would result in large gantries appearing over the 14 lanes. I know that there will not be 14 lanes at the pilot stage, but let us look ahead at the grotesque nightmare that will eventually materialise. There will be 14 lanes and gantries with all sorts of messages on them, and drivers will be jockeying for position, trying to work out what the signals are telling them to do. Are they to reduce their speed or increase it? If they are three lanes from the lane they ought to be in, it will be like the dodgems.
Simply adding more lanes on the scale proposed is not the answer. Had the Department been smart enough a few years ago to leave a slightly wider curtilage, which would have enabled it to move first from three to four lanes, then from four to five in two or three year's time, and then from five to six, it would have got away with it. It would have seemed unreasonable for my hon. Friends and I in future debates to say that we did not like the fifth lane, or were not happy about the sixth lane, when only one lane was being added.
This is the big leap: we are to have an extra six lanes. My hon. Friend the Minister must not underestimate the intensity of the opposition, which is not based just on the fact that people are saying that they already live near it and do not like it or that they will lose their houses. The people who will lose their houses are lucky. We are beyond that—we are talking about colossal environmental damage and fantastic pollution.
The Department needs to think about work patterns, and about the 60,000 or 70,000 people who work at Heathrow, nearly all of whom drive to work, and many of whom would not do so if a satisfactory alternative transit system existed. My hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks

has described cogently the Paris transport system. The sad fact that we have to face, which involves successive Governments, is that we have not solved the problem of how to move people from the conurbations around London in and out of the city, whether they are travelling for leisure or for business purposes.
I urge my hon. Friend to take the message back to his Department from the debate that this is not just a knee-jerk reaction by a bunch of well-meaning Members from the shires, as I suppose we are called. This is but the start. These are the early shots in a campaign which will last a long time. It will last as long as his Department persists with the proposals. We intend to use whatever means we can to encourage the Department, if I may put it in those terms, to justify what it is doing and to urge it every step of the way to think again and to develop the integrated transport policies that we believe are the only sensible recipe for transport use in the early part of the next century.

Sir Michael Grylls: My hon. Friends who have taken part in the debate initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Ainsworth) have covered much of the ground involved in the effective doubling of the M25. I want to paint a picture of the area where it is proposed to start, which may not be familiar to all hon. Members—roughly the part between the M4 and the M3, going towards Chertsey, in other words, Egham to Chertsey. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for Chertsey and Walton (Sir G. Pattie) will forgive me for mentioning Chertsey, but I had the honour to represent the people in that area until they took the wise decision to have him instead of me.
It is a lovely area. From St Anne's hill at my hon. Friend's end of the constituency, to the village of Thorpe in my constituency, to the ancient town of Egham on the edge of the River Thames, it is a great beauty spot. Thorpe is a beautiful village, surrounded by the M25, the M3 and the Thorpe water park, which is quite agreeable on a nice day. The village will be squeezed even more by the doubling of the M25. It is a lovely village with its ancient church. Coincidentally, it is reputed to be the place where the first Christian worship took place, so it is an historic church. Thorpe is a traditional English village where people have lived happily for hundreds of years.
I shall pick up the theme of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chertsey and Walton. He said that people originally accepted the M25. There was an understanding that there had to be a belt road round London to avoid congestion in the capital. People accepted it, although it did enormous damage when it was built. The M25 goes close to the village of Thorpe and touches the town of Egham. As my right hon. Friend said, the noise is appalling.
People accepted the road because there was a national interest in it and they understood the logic of it. None of them in their wildest imaginations believed that my hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic would make this proposal. My hon. Friend is benign, extremely efficient, charming and distinguished. He has only good attributes: I cannot think of a single negative attribute. That is a rare thing to say about any Minister—we get to know the negatives quickly. My hon. Friend the Minister does not have any negative attributes. The only problem was that he


made this proposal. People could not believe that someone would double the motorway. It was absolutely astounding. In the years that I have represented this lovely part of the world, I have known nothing like the angers and horror which spread.
When the proposal was mooted, it was fascinating. I went to an exhibition in Egham in the literary institute building. The building is beautiful and I commend it to my hon. Friends who have not yet been there. There were two gentlemen from the Department of Transport at the exhibition, although my hon. Friend the Minister was not there. There were a lot of anxious burghers of Egham at the meeting who asked the officials, "Even if we accept these feeder roads—which we certainly do not, but let us say that we do simply for the matter of argument—as necessary to resolve the present problems, for how long will they resolve the problems? What will happen when the feeder roads get filled up? Will you take another eight lanes or build something on top or underneath?" We were treated like idiots. The officials may have been right or wrong. We may be idiots. We got the odd reply that those matters are not relevant because this solution will be the all-time solution. We heard the same thing when the M25 was built.
We have the advantage of,some traffic flows which are expected in the year 2015—they were announced in a parliamentary question. That is a few years on. Undoubtedly, my hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic will still be in the same position: he may even be the Secretary of State for Transport by then. There will certainly be a Conservative Government. In 2015, he will be 74. We will probably have another Adjournment debate to discuss this issue and it may well be at an uncivilised hour, as well. My hon. Friend the Minister will be 74 and I will be 81, so it will be much worse for me. Undoubtedly, I will stagger or totter into the Chamber and say that this sort of thing is wrong.
The figures show that nearly a quarter of a million cars will travel between junctions 14 and 15 daily. They are silly figures because we know that such figures have always been wrong. My hon. Friend the Minister has given the figures in all honesty, and he is a man of the highest integrity. I do not believe that he is trying to trick anyone. However, I do not think that any true credibility can be given to the figures. Forecasts are made and it is said that this will be the all-time solution until the year 2015; but the figures could be at least 50 per cent. wrong. I believe that the initial figures for the M25 were more than 50 per cent. wrong.
We know what is happening. The Department feels that it must do something—and that is understandable. It is what politics is about: instant action to get instant results. However, as my hon. Friends the Members for Surrey, East and for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson) said, when one is talking about the future of the countryside and green belt areas, one cannot be short-termist. Once it has been concreted over, it cannot be deconcreted. People in our part of the world have accepted the M25 as being generally in the national interest, but hereafter we face creeping concretization—if I may be allowed to use that phrase. It is short-termism gone mad.
We need some real lateral thinking, not the knee-jerk reaction of putting a few more lanes in to keep the whole thing going. I do not know how the suggested traffic slowing measure would work. If traffic on one part of a circular road goes at 50 mph and on another part goes at

80 mph, one does not need to be a great mathematician to realise that at some stage there might be a nasty bump. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Chertsey and Walton said, one has to read the gantries. I would not be able to read them at all, let alone concentrate on them. So perhaps that is not helpful.
We need to examine how we shall deal with the car. In the past 25 years, the growth in the number of cars has been enormous. Somehow the country has just survived. But our south-east of England has become very crowded. If one takes the increase in traffic in London in the past 25 years and doubles it for the next 25 years, one can conclude that, although the traffic flows slowly now, it would come to a full stop then. So we must do some careful thinking.
First, we must conduct an environmental study of the whole M25. We should not deal with it piecemeal. I do not want my hon. Friend the Minister to think that I am being critical—perish the thought—but I believe that there is an element of divide and rule in the Government's policy. They think, "We will pick off Grylls in this part. We can dispose of him easily. We can eat him for supper. Then we will take the right hon. Member for Chertsey and Walton." He would be rather a more substantial meal than me. They may get indigestion.
We are not too much trouble individually. Tonight, unfortunately for the Government, four of us happen to be together so we are a proper repas, to coin a French phrase. The Government have to do better. We must look at the environmental dimension. I do not want to stray into European policy in a debate on a national issue, because I know that you would tick me off, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, there may be room for calling back that EC figure who was much derided by some of us—Mr. Ripa di Meana.

Sir Geoffrey Pattie: He has retired.

Sir Michael Grylls: Perhaps he has retired or perhaps he is in prison for taking a few pourboires that he should not have taken. Good luck to him. Perhaps we want another Mr. Ripa di Meana to have a look at the whole of the M25 and find some less damaging solutions.
My hon. Friend the Minister has one great attribute which I have not yet mentioned. I do not want to leave any out. He is a real country man. He loves the country and represents the beautiful county town of Lincoln in a beautiful part of England. He understands well the need to preserve the countryside. Perhaps we should look more seriously for solutions to traffic problems. The Government have mentioned road pricing. It would be difficult to operate, but it is a better solution than telling people that they should not use their cars. That would not be feasible. The car is part of our life for the foreseeable future in a free country. As a Conservative, I do not believe that people should be told not to use their cars.
Using price as a way to control the use of cars would be more acceptable than creeping concretisation. This is not the time to go into the technicalities of road pricing, but certainly it can be done without people having to put money into boxes. We can do it with technology. Perhaps another way—I do not necessarily propose this, but I want to put some new thinking into the debate—would be somehow to limit the amount of petrol that people can buy. I do not like rationing. The hon. Member for


Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) is going to have a bit of fun in a moment. He would love to intervene, I am sure, and I would love to give way to him, but time is short.
Perhaps petrol is the key—pricing petrol according to how much is used. A motorist has £500 worth at the normal price, and the next £500 worth at double the price.
Some thought must be given to bringing pricing into the use of cars. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chertsey and Walton was right when he said that we are a very small country. But we are particularly blessed because we have had sensible policies that preserve the green belt, so we still have lovely parts of our country, even near great cities such as London, Birmingham, Manchester and Liverpool. That has been a precious policy that we must not eat into. If we do, future generations will never forgive us.
So let us look at road pricing very seriously. Even if these feeder roads happen—there is a big question whether they will—when they get blocked up again in the year 2015, and my right hon. Friend is 74 and I am 81, we will still have to come to road pricing, I am absolutely sure. So why not do it now, and not destroy more and more of the countryside?
There is another area that I commend to my hon. Friend, because he is a member of the Government, whom I support with great enthusiasm, and they have a temporary problem with their borrowing, which is forecast to go to a very high level temporarily, until we can bring it under control. I know that my hon. Friend will wish to play his part in bringing that excessive spending under control, because he is a very sound economist and I have discussed these things with him. He wants to see sound money and prudent finances. He does not like high spending any more than I do, and we are spending far too much as a country. I am perfectly sure that he will want to make his contribution from his Department. He is, and would like to be even more, I am sure, the blue-eyed boy of my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary, who needs to bring the financial situation under control.
Most hon. Members come to the House and ask for more money for their constituents—a bit more money for this hospital, this school, that bypass. I am going to shock the House and suggest tonight that my constituency could do without £144 million, which is the estimated cost of this first stage of the feeder road system. I am sure that my hon. Friend will be the first to congratulate me on that generous gesture and will tell the Chief Secretary that the hon. Member for Surrey, North-West has made a generous gesture, and it should be recognised, appreciated and accepted here and now.
We have a very famous part of the country in north-west Surrey called Runnymede, where the Magna Carta was signed. There are some statues and memorials there, and my hon. Friend would surely deserve a statue in that famous field if he accepted my proposal to save £144 million of taxpayers' money. That would be good for the Budget and good for the borrowing requirement. It would please the Chancellor, and we always like to do that. It would give us time to look very seriously at this issue of how we keep the M25 moving and how we deal with the motor car for the next 25 years, while preserving the freedoms that we all want to preserve.
I want to leave my hon. Friend under no misapprehension about the anger that is felt about this

proposal in my constituency, and in other constituencies, too; there is also the fear that people's main asset, their home, is under threat. It is not the house that is compulsorily purchased that is the problem; it is the house whose occupants can no longer go into the garden. Their house is not only unsaleable; it is uninhabitable.

Mr. Wolfson: In support of that point, is my hon. Friend aware that there have been road widening schemes in the area near Maidstone and the current compensation arrangements are quite appalling? It is an inadequate way of protecting his constituents from the ravages of road widening.

Mr. Grylls: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. No one dreamt there would be such noise. My constituents accepted the concept and the building of the M25, but they had no idea what the noise would be, and nor did the planners or the Department. They had no idea what the traffic flow would be, so they could not have known about the noise. Now it will be virtually doubled and that is intolerable.
Like those of my hon. Friends here tonight, mine is a loyal Conservative constituency which has always returned a Conservative Member of Parliament, as far as I know. I am sure that it will continue doing so, but the anger of my constituents with their own Government knows no bounds. They are deeply upset and angry and they do not believe that sufficient thinking has gone into the plans.
We need lateral thinking and we need to pause. Let us save the money, and let us find a sensible way of dealing with the problem and not do it through wholesale destruction.

Mr. Tony Banks: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to make some comments about the proposal.
I start by congratulating the hon. Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Ainsworth) on his choice of subject. Having heard the proposal, it is not surprising that the widening of the M25 should have stirred up the Conservatives in the way it has done this evening. I have great sympathy with Conservative Members, and indeed with all the people who will be affected if the Government are foolish enough to go ahead with the proposal. The hon. Member for Surrey, North-West (Sir M. Grylls) was too kind to the Minister. Perhaps he feels that his gentle persuasion will cause the Minister to rethink, but there are signs of a juggernaut behind the proposal and I am not sure whether the Minister has the power to stop it.
So many proposals start in the fevered minds of planners and civil servants, are taken up by Ministers and, despite the fact that hon. Members across the House consider them to be absolutely appalling, nothing is done about it. No one has spoken in favour of the proposal. Although the Government Whip might speak in favour of it if he had the opportunity to do so, I suspect that he would be a minority voice among those who understand and are directly affected. If Parliament means anything at all, the wishes of Members of Parliament who represent the area covered by such a proposal ought to be taken seriously into account. It will not bother me if the Minister outrages his own side. I welcome the thought of large numbers of Conservative seats falling at the next county


council elections, as they may very well do as a result of the proposal. It is not for me to tell the Minister that if he wants to save his political skin and some of his colleagues on county councils in the area he should do something about it. That is his problem.
If the proposal is implemented, it will be devastating to the environment and to the communities, which happen to be represented in large measure by Conservative Members, but that does not mean that there are no Labour voters in the area and that we have no concern for people, whoever they vote for and whoever they elect to the House of Commons.

Sir Michael Grylls: The hon. Gentleman is probably aware that Surrey county council, as a body, and all the Conservative councillors are dead against the proposal and have been fighting it every bit as hard as Conservative Members.

Mr. Banks: I was aware of that fact. The only thing that will concentrate the Government's mind, however, is if they see their party suffering electoral reverses in the county council elections. That might sound like an obvious point for me to make, but I do not want to rejoice in Tory defeat by seeing the scheme go ahead. If the people of Surrey, Kent, Berkshire, Buckinghamshire, Hertfordshire and Essex want to send a clear message to Ministers, perhaps they should do so by voting out Conservative county councils—even when they know that those councils are as much opposed to the M25 proposals as they, the electors, are.

Mr. Peter Ainsworth: I must take issue with the hon. Gentleman on that point. The people of Surrey, Essex, Kent and Berkshire are not foolish. They know where they stand on the proposals, which they are against. They know that their locally elected authorities share their opposition. They know that their best chance of getting the proposals thrown out is by re-electing Conservative councillors who will be able to liaise closely with their Members of Parliament to persuade my hon. Friend the Minister to see sense.

Mr. Banks: The hon. Gentleman's hon. Friend the Minister has not seen sense up to now, even after listening to an awful lot of his hon. Friends trying to tell him why he should. Conservative Members should be more forceful in their treatment of the Minister. Instead of treating him with kid gloves, perhaps they should strangle him—that would be the best way to concentrate his mind.
I understand that Conservative Members are serious about their opposition to the proposals, but I believe that some serious electoral reverses will have to be suffered by their party in their areas so that the Minister understands the depth of local feeling. If a Labour Government were to make such a proposal, I would be up in arms—I would not go toadying to a Labour Minister to beg him not to be nasty to my constituents.
The proposals will have a devastating impact on the affected areas and it is amazing that the Government can come forward with them. In 1986, on the day the M25 was completed, the then Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, described it as "a magnificent achievement". That was a hollow claim even then. Even before its completion, planners realised that they had hopelessly underestimated traffic growth on the motorway. Traffic in the north-west sections grew by between 30 and 70 per cent. within six

months of the final stage being completed. Although it was expected to carry 79,000 vehicles a day in 2001, traffic on some western sections already exceeds 200,000 vehicles.
In 1988, two years after completion, 21 out of 26 sections were carrying more traffic than they were designed to carry. The hon. Member for Surrey, North-West referred to the possible intervention of the European Community and the former Environment Commissioner, Carlo Ripa di Meana. The Government's proposal that eight lanes should be completed by 1996 and 14 lanes by 2007 cuts out public discussion and debate in the affected areas. No full plan will be debated, so the environmental impact assessments which the hon. Member for Surrey, North-West wants will not be prepared. They will be prepared for one section at a time. Some sections will be widened before consultations and inquiries into other sections have taken place. That is a ridiculous and irresponsible way to undertake such a development.
The hon. Member for Surrey, North-West also said that he intended to ask Ministers not to spend money in his constituency. I understand why, because the total cost of the 14 lanes will be £2·8 billion at 1990–91 prices. That money could be used to build crossrail, which would be a good way to relieve congestion within the M25 area.
I have a list of all the towns, villages and sites of special scientific interest affected in Kent, Surrey, Berkshire, Buckinghamshire, Hertfordshire and Essex.

Ms Diane Abbott: Read it out.

Mr. Banks: My hon. Friend asks me to read it out, but I cannot do so as it contains dozens and dozens of villages. Widening the M25 to 14 lanes will devastate the countryside around London. Some 60 per cent. of the area affected lies in the green belt. Up to 26 sites of special scientific interest—the official title given to the United Kingdom's most precious wildlife sites—lie near the M25. Seventeen of them lie within 500 metres of it, and many will be damaged or destroyed. The M25 passes through three areas of outstanding natural beauty—the official term used for areas of beautiful countryside—the Chilterns, the Surrey hills and the Kent downs. Widening it would further damage those areas.
The proposal is not the way to deal with congestion. I think that it was the right hon. Member for Chertsey and Walton (Sir G. Pattie) who said that if the motorway is widened it will be the widest motorway system outside north America. We know what happens: the more roads one builds, the more traffic comes on to them. The Roads Federation will then demand that more roads be built. People in the Department of Transport seem obsessed with building more roads. I wish that they were more obsessed with building railways in this country, but the cry is always for more roads. The roads lobby, with which Conservative Members are dealing, is a powerful political force. As the roads become wider, more traffic uses them, and so the demand increases.
The scheme is crazy, irresponsible and destructive. The Opposition bitterly oppose the proposal to widen the M25. If the Minister does not listen to me—and I doubt whether he will—I hope that he will listen to Conservative voices as on this occasion they are telling the truth and it is about time that he listened.

The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Kenneth Carlisle): I, too, am glad that tonight's subject for debate was chosen. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Ainsworth) on securing it, and I congratulate my hon. Friends for turning up in such force to participate in it. The subject is important and I have found the arguments of great interest and thought. I hope to respond satisfactorily to my hon. Friends, but the debate is a continuing one and will go beyond tonight as it involves the development of our transport policy, which is important and enduring. My hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, East has returned to the subject, which I welcome, and I know that he will do so again. He also expressed the interest of some of my hon. Friends.
I was glad to visit the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, North-West (Sir M. Grylls) only a week or two ago to look at the problem on site. He showed me the road from all angles and I met many of his constituents. He made me aware of his concern. In the House, and on other occasions, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chertsey and Walton (Sir G. Pattie) and my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson) have also ensured that their great concerns are fully aired. I thank them for being present tonight.
I shall try to answer the issues raised. First, however, it is important to consider the present needs of the M25, which is one of the most important roads in this country. Since it was opened, the traffic on it has increased. It has served its purpose well and has drawn traffic away from London, but now its busiest sections—sections 12 to 15, to which the proposal relates—carry up to 200,000 per day. That is nearly double the amount of traffic for which the road was designed.
There has been much talk about expanding other forms of transport, which we support. We want a balanced transport system, and put about as much money into railways and public transport as we do into roads. But 90 per cent. of freight and people travel on our road system. Even if we doubled the number of people who travelled by train, we would hardly dent the numbers who travel by road. The M25 is already full to overflowing, so the problem is one that we face now, not one that will have to be faced in 10 years' time. We need a better road system now.
The M25 is not just a local road, although surprisingly it is that as well—two thirds of the traffic which gets on at the M3 gets off at or before the M4—so we can look at sections of the M25 in their own right, serving a local community. It also serves as an important road for through traffic. I have more letters than ever saying that we must improve the road. People write from Scotland to say that the biggest bottleneck between Scotland and their markets is the M25. We must stand up for a big silent majority who want not to face congestion on roads, and who want the roads to be improved.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Chertsey and Walton is important in the industrial world, and is an important man in my constituency of Lincoln, where he is the chairman of some of the companies there. When I visit those companies, the biggest complaints that I have about their ability to compete is that communications are not good enough and it takes them too long to get their products to Heathrow or the channel ports. It is therefore vital for the economies of communities north of Watford,

in Lincoln, in Yorkshire and in Lancashire, that the M25 should work well, and we are determined to ensure that our plans for the M25 relate to that.
My hon. Friends have said that they want to see the future of the M25 set in its strategic context. That is the right way to go about things, and it is what we seek to do. Many papers have done so. For example "Roads for Prosperity" in 1989 had a section on the M25, and that was followed up by the White Paper of 1990. We also had, in 1989, the M25 review, which dealt specifically with the M25, followed in 1990 by the M25 action plan, which again looked at the M25 in its strategic context. I have promised my hon. Friends and the county councils representing the areas surrounding the M25 that when we come up with the results of the consultation paper on link roads we shall have a further paper on our strategy for the M25.
The case for a better M25 is proven by the existing weight of traffic on it, by the needs of the economy and by the congestion. People who live around the M25 should ponder a little on what happened when it was closed by the false alarm that a bomb had been placed on it. Traffic was forced on to local roads, where it had been before the motorway was built, causing great inconvenience to all the local communities. The number of cars on the roads will further increase. We have fewer cars per person than Germany and France, but as prosperity returns, more cars will be bought. If we do nothing to the M25, and do not improve that existing route, in 10 or 15 years' time, those communities will be angry about the congestion. There is an argument that we should seek to keep traffic on existing routes so that it does not spill over into surrounding communities.
I agree that there is a strong argument that we cannot continue merely to build roads. We must have new thinking, and within the Department there is the genesis of many new initiatives. First, we can use new technology—some of which my right hon. Friend the Member for Chertsey and Walton produces—to manage roads better. We are increasingly erecting variable message signs on motorways to enable us better to manage traffic flows. We recently announced a trial of controlled motorways, which we hope will help to improve the flow on existing motorways. As that will not be enough, we are examining pricing. I may be unpopular as a result, but I must say that we are considering it.
We are undertaking some research into road pricing within towns and cities. That is city congestion charging. We hope that we shall be able to develop ideas and technology so that if we wanted to go ahead with an experiment, we could do so. It is important to separate towns and cities from the flow of traffic between communities. We have said that in May we shall be producing a Green Paper on motorway charging, which will be between cities. I shall be grateful if my right hon. and hon. Friends respond to the paper. As the Minister with responsibility for roads, I recognise that it is vital to improve the flow of traffic between towns and cities. The roads which link them are, unfortunately, not yet good enough. They are far worse than their counterparts in many other countries on the continent. Our inter-urban roads need to be improved, even if we have to move towards some concept of motorway charging in the long-run. I am convinced that within towns and cities we cannot make provision for ever more traffic. Therefore, we are developing comprehensive packages within towns.
The other day I visited Chester, where we have helped to fund a park-and-ride scheme. Eventually, there will be five or six extremely good car parks on the edge of the city, where motorists will park their cars before taking a 10-minute journey into the city centre at a very cheap rate.
We are examining city congestion charging, park and ride, controlled parking, bus routes, and so on. These ideas are developing quickly in our communities. There is much to be said for the integration of transport, but I tend to agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, North-West that we cannot dictate to people what they may or may not do. We must depend very much on the private sector to ensure that a bus meets a train when it arrives at a station. Within that use of the private sector, we are seeking integration. In the coming year we shall invite local authorities, when they bid for transport supplementary grant, to adopt what we call a package approach, if they can develop one. That means submitting a bid which can balance, as it were, buses, railways, the need for roads, park and ride, and so on. That is a useful initiative.
My right hon. and hon. Friends are rightly worried about the environment and it is important that we adopt a sensitive approach to the building of roads. First, we accept that it is difficult to build a road on a green-field site. If we do not improve existing routes, however, we may be forced to build a road where one did not exist before. If we are to improve our road system, we must expand existing routes—that is the way to do it.
The realistic speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks dwelt on environmental aspects. There have been improvements in that respect. Our "Good Roads Guide" described how new roads are made to fit better into the landscape, and false mounding and false cutting is used far more imaginatively. I agree with my hon. Friend that there is great scope for higher and more environmentally friendly noise barriers. Such new techniques, together with quieter road surfaces, will be used to make roads more acceptable.
When designing roads, we must consider each section in detail to determine how it should be constructed. My hon. Friend asked how the road would be constructed in his constituency, if we decide to widen within the existing boundaries after consultation. If my hon. Friend will visit the Department, we can show him how each section will be dealt with in the most sensitive way. If we were to go ahead with link roads on the west of the M25, the road's existing design would be improved. About two-thirds of the land

taken for the link roads would be used for landscaping—the planting of trees, banks, mounding, and otherwise making the road less obtrusive. When I visited the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, North-West, I reached the conclusion that our designs would make the road less intrusive than it is today. If we went ahead with the link roads, we would take great care to design them properly.
As my hon. Friends know, we take consultation seriously and have consulted on the link roads. I cannot say yet what we shall do because we have not concluded our consideration of that consultation. If we were to go ahead because the existing need for the road was considered pre-eminent, we would bring forward a full environmental assessment. The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) should understand that. It is not as he said. We would attempt to take people with us when we announced the preferred route and would show them the plans in more detail. They would of course have the right to a full public inquiry at which they could advance their views.

Sir Geoffrey Pattie: Can my hon. Friend confirm that the public inquiry and related procedures would be on a motorway-wide basis, and not deal with one section after another?

Mr. Carlisle: It has to be on the road that is being built. It would not make any sense to hold an inquiry on junctions 12 to 15 and on the Dartford bridge at the same time. They are not related closely enough. When one considers the flow of traffic on the M25, it is clear that it is a local road. My right hon. Friend said that he uses just one section, as he nips to his surgery and back again. When the results of the consultation are published, and if we are to go ahead, we shall produce a strategy document which will consider the M25 in the round.

Sir Michael Grylls: Will my hon. Friend undertake to include in his paper all the options for the feeder roads?

Mr. Carlisle: I shall try to be, as helpful as possible. I believe that there is an economic need for a better M25. We shall consult, and we shall be as sensitive as possible. I fully understand that we must develop our thinking about how to manage traffic in the future. Although roads are economically important, we all know that they are only a part of life and need to fit sensibly into the existence of a civilised society.

Orders of the Day — Atomic Test Site (South Australia)

Dr. Norman A. Godman: This debate was prompted by the civilised and honourable campaign conducted by the Maralinga people of South Australia to have their land—or much of it—restored to them in a way that will allow the continuation of a culture that has existed for many years.
Between 1953 and 1957, the United Kingdom Government conducted nine atomic tests and 700 minor trials in the traditional lands of the Maralinga people. Those lands were restored to them in 1984 by the South Australian Government's Maralinga—Tjarutja land rights. The Maralinga people were traditionally nomadic, roaming across the Maralinga lands. From the 1920s, rations and a rudimentary education were offered to them by a mission at Ooldea, which was located on the east-west railway line. That mission, however, was abandoned in 1952.
In fact, 1952 was a momentous year for the people. It was in that year that the aborigines who had inhabited Maralinga lands were placed in a mission at Yalata, several hundred miles south of their tribal lands. The people were not consulted; they were simply moved by forces attached to the South Australian and federal Australian Governments. They stayed at Yalata and elsewhere until as recently as 1984. Some of the elders—including Hugh Windlass, who visited this Parliament not long ago—attempted to return to their lands, but were set back to Yalata by federal Australian nuclear test personnel.
Despite the setbacks, the Maralinga people were determined to return to their lands. They began a long struggle for land rights, which culminated, in December 1984, in the grant of title to 76,000 sq km of their lands by the South Australian Government.
The issue of the contamination of atomic nuclear tests sites arouses widespread interest—and, indeed, controversy—among those who seek to defend the interests of soldiers who, it is legitimately claimed, have suffered because of their physical involvement in such tests. On 14 March, The Observer said:
Britain is facing a multi-billion-dollar bill to clean up hundreds of square kilometres of land seriously contaminated with radioactivity from its testing of nuclear bombs. Legislation before the US Congress threatens to make Britain pay its share of a huge decontamination project at the Nevada test site, which is leaking plutonium and other dangerous radionuclides.
The position in Australia is much less grave. The same article, written by Geoffrey Lean, states:
Meanwhile, Australia is demanding that Britain should pay a much smaller bill for the clean-up of the Maralinga test site, which it used before moving to Nevada … A joint British and Australian investigation concluded that a full clean-up would cost £300 million. The Government and Aborigines have agreed to a £45 million programme.
I should be interested in the Minister's reaction to the press report; the figure of £45 million may be sheer press speculation.
Many people are interested in the issue. Yesterday morning I received a letter from Ken McGinley, the chairman of the British Nuclear Tests Veterans' Association. He says
Dear Mr. Godman,
Nuclear Tests—Maralinga.
I write on behalf of the Maralinga Veterans and

indigenous peoples of Australia who, I feel, have been treated extremely shabbily since the Atomic Bomb tests in the 1950's. It is the British Government's responsibility to clean up the Maralinga range and fully compensate the Aboriginal people for using their land for scientific purposes.
Councillor McGinley—he is a district councillor in Renfrewshire—goes on to make an interesting observation:
It is a fact that during the 1950's the British Government was contemplating using Wick [in Scotland) as a testing ground for atomic trigger devices. However, this did not materialise because (according to Lord Penny …) the climate was too wet! Otherwise the inhabitants of the north of Scotland would be in the same predicament today as are their Australian counterparts.
Ken McGinley goes on to say:
It is ironic that countries who have been involved in nuclear testing would not carry out these tests in their own countries.
Some two and a half years ago, Archie Barton, Hugh Windlass and a number of others from Maralinga Tjarutja formed a delegation and came to London with the objective of securing a sympathetic response from both Ministers and Members of Parliament to what I believe to be their entirely reasonable claim that the contaminated land should be cleansed and, wherever possible, made safe for traditional aboriginal life and culture.
I readily acknowledge that our Australian visitors received a courteous reception from the Minister concerned and his officials. They also elicited a great deal of sympathy from Members on both sides of the House. However, nothing was achieved in terms of their legitimate claims. Consequently, a second delegation was sent by the Maralinga people to the Minister with the appropriate responsibilities, Lord Cranborne. Again the response was extremely courteous. Lord Cranborne is a very courteous man. However, matters remained largely unchanged.
The frustration and anger of these fine and decent people concerning what they see as this Government's failure to honour certain obligations that they have towards them and their land is mounting. This, to my mind, disgraceful state of affairs must be ended by joint action being undertaken and financed by the federal Government of Australia and the United Kingdom Government.
I ask the Minister, who always in these debates and others listens with characteristic attention, to accept my view that now that the dust has settled in the wake of the Australian federal election, Prime Minister Keating and our Prime Minister should sign an agreement that would satisfy the needs of the Maralinga people.
Perhaps I could offer a word or two about my involvement in this affair. At the time of Archie Barton's initial visit, a number of Opposition Members discussed the possibility of our visiting the site in South Australia. We agreed that if any one of us were lucky enough, a special effort should be made to travel to Maralinga Tjarutja in order, among other things, to discuss the problems with the local people. For me, that ambition was realised last September, when I had the honour of being appointed deputy leader of the United Kingdom's Commonwealth Parliamentary Association delegation for a three-week visit to Australia. I am not being facetious when I say that I was in interesting company. The group included the hon. and irrepressible Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman). It was an agreeable lot, ably led by the distinguished Conservative hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth). We travelled to Maralinga


Tjarutja in the company of two representatives of the South Australia Parliament—Mr. Graham Gunn, a Liberal Member, and Mr. Kevin Hamilton, a Labour Member. Those gentlemen were extremely kind, courteous and helpful to their United Kingdom visitors, and I am telling the truth when I say that both were utterly committed to the Maralinga cause. It is my view that this reflects the cross-party support to be found in the state Parliament of South Australia and in the federal Parliament in Canberra.
For our part, we quickly discovered that there were no party political differences between United Kingdom Labour and Conservative Members. In proof of the continuing cross-party support, I quote from a letter that I have received from the hon. Member from Stratford-on-Avon:
Dear Norman
I am extremely pleased that you have been able to secure the opportunity for a debate here in the House of Commons on cleaning up the former United Kingdom atomic test site at Maralinga. I am only very sorry that I am unable personally to attend this debate, which is to be held at short notice.
The hon. Gentleman refers to the delegation of which we were members and to our briefing, both in Adelaide and at Maralinga. The letter goes on:
I know that all of us were both impressed and moved by the case put to us by Archie Barton and other representatives of the Maralinga people. I know too that there is a body of opinion in all parties in the British House of Commons that is anxious to secure rapid progress towards a settlement of the outstanding issues which is accepted as fair and reasonable among all concerned.
Speaking for myself, I do not think that environmental standards which may have been found acceptable in 1968 are adequate today. I believe that responsibility for clearing up the test site should be accepted as resting jointly with the British and Australian Governments.
I make no apology for having quoted at some length from the hon. Gentleman's admirable letter. I believe that if his hon. Friends the Members for Billericay and for Harrogate (Mr. Banks) were here at this bleak hour they would be only too willing to voice identical sentiments. The other two Members of the delegation, my hon.]Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney), who is an old friend, and. Baroness Hollis of Heigham, hold exactly the same view.
This is a moral issue. It certainly is not a party political issue. For that reason, I have sought not to make a party political speech. The Minister might well ask how one could make a party political speech. After all, both Tory and Labour Administrations have made critical decisions that have had a severe and distressing impact on the Maralinga Tjaratja. My hon. Friends must be reminded of the fact that it was Prime Minister Clement Attlee who, by way of a telephone call to federal Prime Minister Robert Menzies, sought and obtained authorisation for the creation and establishment of this atomic bomb test site. In 1968, it was a Labour Government who made what with 1993 hindsight can be called the erroneous claim that matters had been put right. It was also a Labour Government who prepared the way for the 1979 accord which said that things were all well and good in the area.
Late last year, Archie Barton wrote a letter to Viscount Cranborne, the Under-Secretary of State for Defence: He said:
Dear Lord Cranborne,
Thank you very much for agreeing to see the delegation from the Maralinga Aboriginal Community and our solicitor on Friday 25 September …

My delegation is looking forward to meeting you to discuss the problems facing the Maralinga people arising from the residual radioactive contamination on the Maralinga lands from the British Nuclear Tests, and in particular:
(1) the deep concern of my people at the delay in resolving outstanding questions between the Australian Government and your Government relating to the funding of the clean-up of our lands.
(2) matters of common interest to the Maralinga people and the British Government relating to the future clean-up of the lands and including:
—the views of the Maralinga people as to the most appropriate clean-up;
—the use which my people can make of the rehabilitated land and test site facilities after the clean-up has occurred."
I sincerely hope that there will be no more procrastination or prevarication in the negotiations between our Government and the federal Government. I shall be delighted when the Australian and United Kingdom Governments agree to make fair and reasonable contributions to the overall cost of a comprehensive clean-up of the site. Account should also be taken of claims for compensation by the Maralinga people for the lands which they accept cannot be cleared up.
When I and my parliamentary colleagues visited the site, we were not allowed inside the fence as we did not have the necessary apparatus to protect ourselves. Even though that site is a very small part of the hugh area of 76,000 sq km, it is extremely important to the people of Maralinga Tjarutja.

Mr. Jim Cousins: In light of his visit to the area, does my hon. Friend know when there might once again be open access to the traditional lands of the Maralinga people, which have been contaminated?

Dr. Godman: I am not a technical man, as the Minister knows. Australian and United Kingdom specialists and scientists believe that a small area will remain contaminated for thousands of years. The aboriginal people accept that that is the case. The McClelland royal commission of, I think, 1984 confirmed that. Another investigation conducted by Australian and United Kingdom scientists made a similar observation. In any case, the parliamentary delegation was not allowed beyond the fence, and I was not going to argue about it.
Yesterday the Premier of the South Australian Government wrote to Archie Barton, and the office kindly sent me a copy of the letter. It is a short letter, and I believe that it is worth quoting, because it reveals the sense of involvement of the state Government:
Dear Mr. Barton,
I am informed that your compensation claim to the British Government is to be brought on for debate in the House of Commons in the immediate future. I congratulate your organisation on your tireless campaign to pursue the rights of your people, and I reiterate the full support of the South Australian Government for your efforts. Let me assure you that I am committed to assisting the Maralinga people whenever possible in the pursuit of your claim. As you are aware I took the opportunity on my recent overseas trip to meet with the Under Secretary of State for Defence for the Armed Forces, Lord Cranborne, in order to reinforce the importance that the South Australian Government places on your cause. I trust our combined efforts will result in a successful resolution of your claim.
In conclusion, you will not be surprised, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to hear that I hope to hear a positive response from the Minister. The Maralinga people deserve a


reasonable reaction to their eminently honourable, peaceable and civilised campaign—I believe that they deserve no less. The Australian federal election is out of the way, and the British Government, with the federal Government of Australia, now have a fine opportunity to settle the issue in the interests of those fine, decent people, the Maralinga people of South Australia.

The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Archie Hamilton): I congratulate the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) on raising this important and topical subject on the Adjournment tonight. I also commend him for the moderate tone that he has taken; I think that he accepts that there is no party divide on the issue, and that we hope to resolve it.
In my response, I hope to set out some of the history of the issue before dealing with the factors that the Government are taking into account in deciding how to respond to the Australian Government's request for a British contribution towards the cost of carrying out further rehabilitation of the Maralinga site.
As the hon. Gentleman knows, Maralinga is located in a remote and generally uninhabited region of the Nullabor plain in South Australia. It is about 1,000 km from the nearest major population centre at Adelaide. That is why the site was selected, with the agreement of the Australian Government, for the conduct of a series of tests and experiments as part of the United Kingdom's nuclear weapons development programme.
The hon. Gentlemen referred to the fact that the Maralinga people had been moved out, and at this stage it is important to explain that that was Australian Government policy. The people were not moved to make way for a nuclear test site; they were being moved anyway, and once that had happened, the area from which they had been moved seemed an ideal site for nuclear tests. The decision followed a move already made by the Australian Government for other reasons, and that is significant in connection with the claims for compensation made by the Maralinga people.
In all, four atmospheric nuclear weapons tests took place in 1956, and several hundred more minor trials not involving nuclear detonations took place between 1955 and 1963. Most involved the release of short-lived radio-isotopes with no-lasting effects. A few, however, involved the release of quantities of plutonium, which is the primary cause of the residual contamination at Maralinga.
The use by the United Kingdom of the Maralinga site was originally governed by ad hoc arrangements between Her Majesty's Government and the Australian Government. The hon. Gentleman referred to Prime Minister Attlee and his conversations on that with the federal Prime Minister. But in March 1956 the ad hoc arrangement was formalised in a memorandum of arrangements, signed by both Governments. The memorandum provided for the clean-up of the test site to standards agreed by the Australian Government, once the test programme was complete. Accordingly, Her Majesty's Government carried out an extensive rehabilitation operation in 1967, known as Operation Brumby, aimed at reducing residual contamination to an acceptable level,

assuming no permanent habitation of the area—the position that obtained prior to the start of the test programme. Following completion of Operation Brumby and a survey of the sites by a joint Atomic Weapons Establishment/United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority team, the United Kingdom" and Australian Governments signed an agreement on 23 September 1968, which stated:
The United Kingdom government have completed decontamination and debris clearance at the Atomic Weapons Proving Ground Maralinga to the satisfaction of the Australian government;
and:
With effect from 21 December 1967, the United Kingdom government are released from all liabilities and responsibilities under [the 1956] Memorandum of Arrangements save that the United Kingdom will continue to indemnify the Australian government in accordance with Clause II of [the 1956] Memorandum in respect of claims for which the cause of action took place after 7 March 1956 and before 21 December 1967.
The exception relates specifically to a limited class of claims for death or injury to personnel and damage to property.
The range has remained wholly in Australian hands since then, though the United Kingdom authorities carried out an operation in 1978 to repatriate 0·5kg of plutonium that was regarded as potentially recoverable. An exchange of notes in November 1978 following that operation confirmed that there was
no question of the United Kingdom having any further responsibility to repatriate waste.
This exchange also expressed the United Kingdom's willingness to provide technical advice on further clean-up, should the Australians decide to carry out such an operation.
Since 1968, various surveys and investigations have been conducted by the Australian Government. In 1984, it appointed a royal commission to investigate the situation and propose further action. The commission reported in November 1985 and, among other recommendations, proposed that the sites be released for unrestricted habitation by the traditional aboriginal owners of the land after further clean-up, and that, notwithstanding the 1968 agreement, the United Kingdom should pay for such a clean-up. The Australian Government, in response to the royal commission report, appointed a group of experts, known as the technical assessment group—TAG—in February 1986 to examine options for possible further clean-up of the site. In accordance with the undertaking given by the United Kingdom in 1978, the group included two United Kingdom experts. We also provided two RAF helicopters to assist in carrying out radiological surveys of the sites. The National Radiological Protection Board also carried out some associated studies.
The TAG reported in November 1990 and set out a range of clean-up options, ranging from the erection and maintenance of light fencing and warning notices to the wholesale removal and treatment of large quantities of topsoil. The report also identified the possible broad costs of the options, ranging from less than £10 million to over £300 million, a figure to which the hon. Gentleman referred. A copy of the report is in the Library of the House.
Following publication of the TAG report, the Australian Government approached Her Majesty's Government in September 1991 stating their view that there was a need for further decontamination, that the


United Kingdom was liable for any clean-up, and requesting that Her Majesty's Government make a significant contribution towards the cost of further rehabilitation. The Australian Government also claimed that the United Kingdom had a responsibility to pay compensation to the traditional aboriginal owners of the land, Maralinga Tjarutja, for any remaining restrictions on access.
Since that time, there have been a number of meetings and exchanges between the Australian federal authorities and Her Majesty's Government to discuss the matter. This included a meeting in November 1991 between the responsible Australian Minister and my noble Friend, the then Under-Secretary for the Armed Forces. Both he and my noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, to whom the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow referred, have met representatives of Maralinga Tjarutja to hear their particular concerns. There have also been meetings with representatives of the Government of South Australia, within whose territory Maralinga lies. We have stressed that we see this as a matter between Her Majesty's Government and the federal Government, rather than the state Government.
The current position at Maralinga is that about 3,000 sq km of uninhabited land around the former test site remains subject to restrictions on access imposed after Operation Brumby. The hon. Gentleman confirmed that because he was not allowed into the area. This represents about 4 per cent. of the 76,000 sq km of traditional Maralinga Tjarutja land. The TAG report identified about 100 sq km—about 0·1 per cent.—of the Tjarutja lands as being contaminated to the extent that exposure for continuous occupancy would result in an annual radiological dose of 5 milliSieverts or more. Exposure to 5 mSv gives an annual risk of one in 10,000 of contracting a fatal cancer. It is worth pointing out that the average lifetime risk of an Australian contracting cancer is about one in four. It is worth mentioning that the inhabitants of Cornwall regularly receive an annual dosage of 8 mSv arising from natural background radiation. If the hon. Gentleman had gone through the fence and into the area involved, he would not have been in any greater danger than if he had not been in Australia at all but in Cornwall.
Clearly, those are factors which need to be taken into account in deciding whether further decontamination is required. This is a matter for the Australian Government, as is the option for clean-up which is selected. Our understanding that a middle-range option from those identified in the TAG report has been selected by the Australian Government. This would involve the treatment of some 2 sq km of the test area, the reburial of some waste material and the erection of light fencing. The indicative estimated cost of this is about 100 million Australian

dollars, or about £50 million. We also understand that, in pursuance of their case for compensation, Maralinga Tjarutja have claimed the sum of 45 million dollars, or about £22.5 million.
That is the background and history against which the issue has developed. The Government have made it plain on a number of occasions that it is their view that our obligations for the decontamination of the Maralinga site were fully discharged after the clean-up carried out in 1967. That was formally recognised in the 1968 agreement to which I referred earlier. We also firmly believe that any question of providing compensation for the aboriginal population is not a matter for Her Majesty's Government. The Australian Government are well aware of our position, and it is against that background that we have been studying their request for a United Kingdom contribution for further clean-up. The Australian case has raised a number of complex and detailed technical and legal points which have required study and research by my Department's nuclear and legal experts.
That process has been completed and Ministers are now considering what substantive response should be made to the Australian Government. A final decision has not yet been made, but we hope to be in a position to make a full response shortly. Clearly, that response will need to take into account the real concerns which the hon. Gentleman and others have raised about such contamination as remains at Maralinga. We are keen to resolve the issue as soon as possible. I am confident that the excellent relationship which we enjoy with the Australian Government as close friends and allies will enable us to do so.
It is necessary to take into account some of the other points which I raised earlier: first, the site is very remote and was deliberately chosen for that reason; secondly, the absolute risk to health, even without further decontamination, is slight; and, thirdly, the United Kingdom has already cleaned up the site once to the satisfaction, confirmed in writing, of the Australian Government.
In summary, the Government fully recognise the anxieties expressed by the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow and others, both in the United Kingdom and in Australia, about the condition of the former test sites at Maralinga. We are examining the case made by the Australian Government for a United Kingdom contribution to further rehabilitation. We have listened carefully to the particular anxieties expressed by the Maralinga Tjarutja about access to their traditional lands. We recognise that, as the hon. Gentleman said, it has taken some time to respond fully to the Australian request. But the hon. Gentleman and others can be assured that that reflects the care with which we have addressed this complex issue.

Orders of the Day — Post Office

Mr. John Marshall: I ask the leave of the House to speak for a second time this evening, as indeed have two Opposition Members. I hope that the House will be as kind to me as we were to the hon. Members for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) and for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks).
First, I pay tribute to all those who work for the Post Office. One of the highlights of my annual political year is going every Christmas to see those who work at the Golders Green sorting office. They are among the most friendly and hardworking of people. They have to work the most anti-social hours, but they are for ever cheerful. They are well regarded by those to whom they deliver letters. They also seem to have a good political bias, because most of them tell me that they vote for me.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: They would, wouldn't they?

Mr. Marshall: Constituents do not always say that when one talks to them. I am sure that, even in Greenock and Port Glasgow, they do not always tell the Member of Parliament that they vote for him.
The Government have already privatised part of the Post Office which they inherited in 1979. I want to talk about Post Office Counters Ltd and the Royal Mail. The Government have already developed some franchised offices of Post Office Counters, instead of Crown offices. In my observation, that has frequently led to several advantages. The first is that the hours of opening of the franchised operations are often longer than those of the Crown offices. I do not think that there is a Crown office in the country which opens after 1 pm on a Saturday. The franchised operations almost all open on Saturday afternoon and later at night than many of the Crown offices. Those longer hours are obviously much more convenient for the customers than the rather restricted hours that Crown offices offer.
The second advantage of franchised operations is that they offer a wide range of goods for the customer. In my constituency there is a franchised operation in Temple Fortune. The lady who runs it, Mrs. Lim, offers a much wider range of goods. She sells cards, stationery and other things which previously would not have been sold when it was a Crown office. She has transformed a neighbourhood post office into much more of a neighbourhood convenience store.
Earlier today—in the parliamentary sense—I entertained some constituents for tea in the Pugin Room. They talked about the former Crown post office in Lyttleton road in my constituency, which has been transformed by being made into a franchised operation slightly further along the road. They said that they now received a friendly service. The person who runs the post office recognises all the customers by name. If they turn up slightly after closing hours, he is still open and will still serve them. They get a much better deal from him than previously from the Crown office. Another post office in my constituency used to have a big mausoleum of an office above it. When it became a franchise operation, the franchisee said that he did not need the office and could let it out to someone else who could use it and provide jobs.
We have found that when offices are franchised there is frequently a hell of a row in advance, because people in Britain do not like change, but once that change has happened they recognise that the new office is giving an even better service than was given before, and it is to the advantage of all those who use that operation. If Post Office Counters were to stay indefinitely in the public sector, it would, I believe, face a gentle decline and find it very much more difficult over the years to continue to offer the sort of service that people expect.
One of the major forms of activity at present is paying out pensions and child benefits to claimants, but I believe that increasingly people will not want to go to the post office and collect the cash; they will want the money paid into their bank accounts. After all, it is only relatively recently that wage earners have received monthly payments into their bank accounts rather than weekly cash payments. If we expect people now to get their wages and salaries paid into their accounts, we should not be surprised if pensioners and mums want their social security benefits paid into their bank accounts rather than having to collect them in cash every week. There is also a perfectly sensible security argument for encouraging that. If a lot of cash is kept in a post office, it is much more likely to be the subject of a raid by robbers than if there is somewhat less cash there.
We have to recognise that the service provided by Post Office Counters to its customers will be very much better if the offices go into the private sector than if they stay in the public sector. If they stay in the public sector, the range of choice that they offer will not be increased, whereas if they go into the private sector they will offer a better choice and longer hours of service to the customer, and eventually they will create many more job opportunities for those who work in them, and offer much more sustainable jobs.
We should also look at some of the Crown offices which occupy wonderful sites in main high roads. Under the present financial arrangements, if the Post Office redevelops those sites, the money flows straight back to the Treasury, so there is no financial incentive for the Post Office as currently constituted to earn the property profits that it might well be able to earn if it were in the private sector. It also sometimes lacks the property expertise. There is an unanswerable case for all the Crown offices to go into the private sector, where they will thrive as small businesses with an entrepreneurial skill and flair that they often lack at the moment.
With regard to the Royal Mail, I listened earlier this week to the "Today" programme, or whatever it is that the BBC churns out at 6.15 in the morning, and the views of the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) who, like all Liberals, has missed this Adjournment debate and every Adjournment debate before it—one wonders where they are. Perhaps the rail strike has sent the hon. Gentleman to Cornwall; that will no doubt be the excuse.
Listening to the hon. Member for North Cornwall talking about the potential impact on the quality of service of the possible privatisation of the Royal Mail, one had to sit back—if one can sit back at 6.15 in the morning—and wonder if we had not heard all this before. Was it not the sort of nonsense that we heard when British Telecom was being privatised in the early 1980s? We were told then that the quality of the payphone service would only get worse if it was privatised.
What happened? Payphones did not work very well in 1983, but today there are many more payphones and


virtually all of them work. Those who say that if we privatise the Post Office and the Royal Mail the quality of service will decline should consider the example of British Telecom. The fears that were expressed when it was privatised turned out to be groundless. Rural telephone services have thrived, just as rural post offices would thrive under privatisation. The overall quality of service supplied by British Telecom has improved.
Similarly, those who run the Post Office believe that there is a case for increasing the level of investment in it. Mr. Cockburn who runs it would like to increase his investment substantially, but I fear that so long as the Post Office remains in the public sector the level of investment will be artificially held down. Privatised industries can increase their investments as soon as they are released from the financial constraints of the Treasury and are able to raise money on the international capital markets.
I remember listening to debates in 1988–89 about privatisation of the water industry. We were told that the industry needed more investment and therefore should stay in the public sector. One might say that argument did not hold water As soon as the water industry entered the private sector, the level of investment increased, as it did with British Telecom. There has been a 50 per cent. increase in investment in the water industry and a magnificent increase in investment in British Telecom. In Cable and Wireless we have seen investment in a service designed to compete with British Telecom. That would never have happened if both companies had remained in the public sector. The answer to those who say that the Post Office needs an increase in investment to become more competitive and efficient must be to remove the postal services from the state sector and put them into the private sector.

Mr. Jim Cousins: Does the hon. Member accept that the new chair of the Post Office, Mr. Heron, in his evidence to the Select Committee only a few days ago, drew attention to the need for his investment programmes to be free of the present restrictive controls that the hon. Gentleman is rightly criticising? He also said, however, that formulations other than privatisation could give him freedom of investment and access to the capital markets. The hon. Gentleman may be in favour of privatisation, but does he accept that there are other options which would give the Post Office its freedom of investment?

Mr. Marshall: It is terribly easy for those who run a nationalised industry to say that there are other ways to raise money while remaining in the state sector, but we have to consider the Government's borrowing requirement. If the Government were to let rip with the Post Office and introduce some new, ingenious system of financing which meant that they could give it more money, that would not do very much for international confidence in Britain or for confidence in the City and elsewhere in the Government's financial policies. The only effective way to achieve a substantial increase in investment in the Post Office is to put its services into the private sector.
In a labour-intensive business such as the Post Office, it is important to look at the record of productivity. Productivity growth in industries which have been privatised, such as British Steel, British Telecom and the electricity and gas industries, improved massively once they were in the private sector. If we were to apply a similar

test to the Post Office, we would find that productivity would increase substantially. Of course we shall be told by existing management that it cannot be done; that is what they said about British Telelcom and British Steel—but as soon as they got into the private sector it was done.

Mr. Cousins: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the evidence, which is attested to by accountants and certified in every way possible, proves that in the past five years productivity in the Post Office, under its existing management, has already increased by 30 per cent.?

Mr. Marshall: It is nice of the hon. Gentleman to point out that under the Government productivity in the Post Office has increased significantly. I thank him for doing that. If one looks at other industries which have already been privatised, however, their record of productivity growth has been even more rapid. I cannot believe that there is not significant scope for increasing productivity still further in the Post Office, given that it has been in the state sector for such a long time.
The opponents of privatisation will ask, "What about pricing?" The history of privatisation has shown that the regulators are even more effective than Ministers in controlling prices. The person who controlled Sir Denis Rooke was not a Minister with responsibility for fuel and power, or the Secretary of State for Energy, but Sir James McKinnon of Ofgas. The regulators are much more likely to be successful at screwing down prices than any Minister, even my hon. Friend the Parliament Under-Secretary of State for Technology, who has appeared diligently this evening to answer the debate.
The life blood of economic progress is a free market economy, based on strong competition. The Post Office is particularly fortunate in the sense that it has been almost absolved from competition. My hon. Friend the Minister should consider the competitive barriers erected against those who seek to compete with it. The private couriers who seek to compete with the Post Office for the dispatch of goods overseas find that, unlike the Post Office, they pay value added tax. I am not suggesting that VAT should be imposed on postal services, but the Government should consider such unfair competition and bias in favour of the Post Office.
My hon. Friend should also consider the restrictions on price competition. Potential competitors with the Post Office must charge a minimum price four times greater than the price of a first-class stamp. It should not be too difficult to remove that barrier quickly.
I apologise to my hon. Friend and to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) for keeping them up, but the issue is an important one. The Post Office serves every household and it would serve people and industry more efficiently if it were in the private sector.

Mr. Jim Cousins: I congratulate the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall), not so much on his ill luck in ending up with this time of night for the debate, but on having such a debate. I congratulate him on his excellent judgment in choosing a topic on which debate is long overdue.
The last time that the Minister and I engaged in such a debate was at a similarly unfavourable hour. I then asked him when we might expect the results of the Government's


review of the Post Office. He replied—he will put me right if I give a false impression of it—to the effect, "We've had the Post Office for 350 years, so, if we take a lot longer, it won't really matter." At the time, and given my sunny and jovial disposition, I did not contest that proposition. With hindsight, however, I should have done, because the Government have dithered and delayed on that review for far too long.
Hon. Members will recall that, on 15 July 1992, the Government announced to Parliament their intention to privatise Parcelforce. The hon. Member for Hendon, South did not occupy himself with that matter, and I understand that. However, it is an important part of the Post Office's activities. On 9 July 1992, after Parliament had gone into recess, the President of the Board of Trade chose to announce by press release his intention for a wide-ranging review of all the Post Office's activities, including the possibility of privatisation.
When we debate the subject again, the House may want to recall that the Government did not choose to make that announcement to Parliament, but, in a cavalier fashion, chose to make it when Parliament was in recess and to do so in the form of a press release. Over an important issue of this sort—I share the views of the hon. Member for Hendon, South about its importance—it was unfortunate and wrong that the Government should have chosen to make the announcement in that fashion, rather than in the form of a statement to Parliament.
What is still more worrying is the fact that no report has yet been given—from 29 July to the present day—about the course, progress, options or more precise details of the matters that are covered by that wide-ranging review of the Post Office. That shows a great disregard for the significance of the issue and it is a further discourtesy to Parliament. The time is long overdue for the Government to come clean about their views on the matter, and to end the muddle and delay that have set in. In the hearing in front of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, to which I have already referred, the chair and the chief executive of the Post Office both described the difficulties that that fact was causing in the management of their business.
The Post Office is not a dead, fixed institution. Its activities, and the way that they are organised, are constantly changing and being adapted. There is always the possibility of new services developing. The hon. Member for Hendon, South took the view that the Post Office was not subject to competition, but clearly it is—both to competition at home and, importantly, abroad. At the same time as the Post Office review has been taking place, there has been a discussion within the European Community of the liberalisation of postal services markets throughout Europe. The Government have never reported back to Parliament on the progress of their review of the Post Office in Britain and, as a consequence, they have not reported back to Parliament on the progress—and their own view—of the liberalisation of postal services markets as part of the developing single market of the European Community. Both those matters are the source of great concern.
It was made entirely clear to members of the Select Committee—of all parties—that the delay and uncertainty were causing the Post Office's investment programmes to

be thrown into some confusion. It was made clear that the Post Office's posture on the development of new services was being frozen and delayed. It also became obvious that it was being made impossible for it to develop a proper, commercial reaction to competitive pressures—both the existing ones and those that will soon develop when there is a single market for postal services—because of the Government's failure adequately to determine the matter.
The issue does not rest there. The President of the Board of Trade has given some comments—not to Parliament, but to Radio 4. He gave them not at 6·15 am, but at the far more gentlemanly hour of the lunchtime Radio 4 news programme.
I have here a transcript of the remarks made by the President of the Board of Trade on 1 February to the Radio 4 lunchtime programme. He referred to his press release of 29 July, which was just over six months' behind him. Therefore, in those remarks, he is reporting and rehearsing the product of six months—an enormous time in Government terms—of systematic investigation of the Post Office review, and commenting with the benefit of over £500,000 of private professional advice that had been obtained from a variety of sources, including Kleinwort Benson, Price Waterhouse and KPMG Peat Marwick.
Incidentally, in a parliamentary answer to me, the Government made it clear that that advice is not to be shared with Parliament. I hope that the Minister will give us some assurance that when the review is finally concluded, and the Government's preliminary proposals are made known, the House will be able to share in a scrutiny of that advice. That would be part of the trend towards openness in government, which we welcome. The President of the Board of Trade is making known publicly his advice on other matters, and it is important that he should make it known to Parliament on that matter as well.
He said when asked whether he was still consulting
The position is precisely that and I have not taken any decision myself as to where we move from there. I haven't got papers actually in front of me that I could put to colleagues. Colleagues have therefore not been consulted or involved in that process and my preoccupation is to make it absolutely clear that whatever we do there will be a nationwide delivery network with delivery to every address and that there will be a uniform and affordable structure of prices with a nationwide network of post offices. That is what I said at the time. We are looking at options and when The Post Office and my officials come to me I will decide what I think should be the next step.
After six months, and a comprehensive invitation of views and opinions from a wide variety of sources, after the expenditure of £500,000 of public money on private professional advice, we have the poor President of the Board of Trade patiently waiting for the Post Office and his officials to come to him so that he can decide to make up his mind about the issues involved in a process that he launched. That is not good enough. The time has long since gone when the President of the Board of Trade should have formed some opinion about those matters.
It may be that forming an opinion about those matters is not as simple as or uncomplicated as the President might have supposed when he set out on that review. In that case, he must be in a position to come back to Parliament, and if he cannot determine an exact course of action on those matters, he should at least set out a range of coherent alternatives from which he proposes to choose. Those difficulties, the range of the choices, appeared, perfectly properly, in the speech of the hon. Member for Hendon, South. He said that there was the possibility of franchising


some of the activities, most specifically in the context of Post Office Counters Ltd. He spoke of privatising—whatever that may mean—the Post Office. It was not clear whether he meant that it should be privatised as a single entity or separate ones—as counters, parcels and Royal Mail. The franchising process to which the hon. Gentleman drew attention seemed to imply that there would be an entity that would act as the franchiser of the franchised services.
These are all practical matters. All the time, sub-post masters and mistresses, new and old, are investing their money in property and facilities and in buying the right to operate post offices when there is uncertainty about what the Government intend for the organisation of the various services. The uncertainty was not resolved after six months, on 1 February, and now over eight months have passed since the review process was set in hand.
We hear rumours. We are told that the Under-Secretary flits about interested Conservative Members presenting a variety of fantastical, chimerical and labyrinthine possibilities. He goes this way and that. The hon. Gentleman is becoming a member of the no-comingforward group.
The world shares in the fruits of some of the Minister's discussions. Rumours of the Minister's latest idea for the mechanics of the privatisation of the Post Office seep out. Wondering people receive the tiny scraps of information, sometimes with interest and usually with amazement. That is not the way to proceed.
We are talking about more than a state-owned operation. Through Post Office Counters, there is an operation that involves tens of thousands of sub-post masters and mistresses, who are business people and property owners. They have their own small investment programmes. They are not included in the external financing limit, I know. Their programmes are usually with their banks. It is not right, fair or proper that these tens of thousands should still be in a state of uncertainty, awaiting the next insight into what the Government's thinking might be by third, fourth or fifth hand from bits of information that leak out from Government circles.
The time has come for the Minister to declare alt least part of his hand. We are talking about more than the potentially global competitive business that we have in the Post Office. The hon. Member for Hendon, South has thrown doubt on its record of commercial success and productivity, but I hope that he agrees that the Post Office is accepted among the public postal services operators of Europe as being by far the most efficient. It is also by far the most cost effective. It is recognised that it offers the best deals on prices.
There is a huge possible postal market. If the Post Office were free to do so—if it were unshackled from the EFL and knew where it stood within the Government's policies—it could become an extremely important and rapidly growing business. We should be planning its success in the postal markets of Europe, which would lead to success for other British businesses engaged in direct mail and publishing. Such businesses work in parallel with the business of the postal services. As I have said, these are important matters. There cannot be total uncertainty for much longer.
We are talking about a business with an annual turnover of £5 billion. It has net assets of more than £2 billion and it employs 200,000 people. It has operated free of subsidy. We are at the start of the 18th year of

subsidy-free operation of the Post Office. Far from the Post Office being a burden on the Government, the Government, in their own expenditure planning, intend to increase the negative EFL by more than 250 per cent. in the next two years so that the Post Office will be expected to make, through the EFL system, a contribution of more than £350 million over the next two years to the Government's own accounts.
The Government have chosen to load at least £200 million of extra negative EFL revenue, and to raise that from the Post Office—when the Government themselves have not come clean on their own proposals for the Post Office and its operations over that period. No commercial operation could possibly succeed in that commercial context. The EFL system is not to be compared with a profit system. The EFL is declared in advance—a target set for the Post Office three years ahead of the turnover and commercial operations under discussion. That is a heavy burden to lay on the Post Office at precisely the same time that an open-ended review that has now lasted for more than eight months is in hand.
No sensible public service or commercial operation could reasonably be expected to perform in that kind of context. Even so, the Post Office is continuing to perform and to deliver what the Government want in terms of a negative EFL.
The new chairman of the Post Office, Mr. Heron, made it crystal clear that he does not consider his remit at all reasonable. He challenged head-on, and rightly, the working of the negative EFL system as it applies to the operations for which he is responsible. The Minister must pay some regard to that. If he cannot say where the Government are going with the Post Office review, at least he should respond to direct criticisms of the negative EFL system made by the Post Office's new chair—who described himself as living in a cash book culture that belongs more to the Victorian age. He made the point that that is not a sensible approach for an organisation that should be seeking to develop its activities, and to respond to possible new markets, competitive pressures and the huge opportunity presented by the single market for postal services with new investment programmes.
Mr. Heron made it clear also that a system that requires those investment programmes to be financed in effect out of revenue, which is the working of the negative EFL system, is simply madness.
The Government's autumn statement made it clear that it would be possible for public organisations to go to the private financial markets to raise their capital in a commercial way—yet the Minister made it clear that that new freedom is not to be extended to the Post Office. In the context of the position clearly adopted towards the negative EFL system by the Post Office's new chair, that aspect is one to which the Minister might well direct his thoughts.
The hon. Member for Hendon, South mentioned the use of the Post Office network, which is larger than the combined network of all the banks and building societies, and has more customers. He said that in future people would opt for the important part of post offices' business—handling the payment of pensions and benefits—to be dealt with by automatic credit transfer into their bank accounts.
Clearly that is a growing trend, which may develop as a result of the availability of choice. It is also clear, however, that the Government may well intend to force


the hand of those who are receiving pension or benefit payments for the first time, persuading them to choose cash transfer rather than payment through the Post Office. That would be a betrayal of those who operate the Post Office Counters network, most of whom are private business people rather than trade union employees or any of the other figures that the Government like to set up.
We must know the direction in which the Minister thinks the Government are going. Does he intend, by negotiation with the Department of Social Security, to allow free choice, or does he intend the Department—by means both direct and surreptitious—to structure choice so that business moves away from the Post Office Counters network?
We do not yet have the transcripts, so I cannot quote from them; but, when the Post Office's director of finance spoke to the Select Committee a few days ago, it was clear that his evidence did not make sense unless he was ignorant of any proposed change in the Department of Social Security's policy in regard to benefit payments through the Post Office network. It now seems, however, that all along the Government have had some plan—a cost-saving plan, perhaps, from their point of view—to structure choice in the way that I have described.
It would be interesting to know whether the Minister was party to the intragovernmental negotiations—whether he was aware of the possibility, or whether, like the Post Office's director of finance, he was operating on the basis that matters would continue according to the present trend, and would not be artificially twisted in some new direction.
I hope that the Minister will give us some idea of the Government's stance on a number of matters, some of which are also of concern to the hon. Member for Hendon, South. There is the question of social security payments through the Post Office network, and the negotiations with the Department of Social Security; there is also the question whether the private professional advice sought by the Government in the last financial year, at great expense, will be sought again in the new financial year on which we have just embarked, involving extra expenditure.
The Minister may not be able to tell us what the options are, but at least he may be able to tell us that there are options—that the President of the Board of Trade has emerged from the period of extraordinary passivity during which he has waited patiently to be told what to say by his officials and those of the Post Office. Have we passed that stage? Are there at least options on paper? Are the right hon. Gentleman's Government colleagues being consulted? How near are we to ending the current prolonged delay? It is not right in terms of parliamentary convention; nor is it fair to the business people whose lives are committed to Post Office services, or to the huge potential business in the Post Office.
The Government have already taken eight months over this matter. Therefore, the Minister ought at least to be able to tell us for how long the Government will allow interested parties, the businesses involved and the British people to mull over whatever conclusions the Government reach. The Government have already taken eight months. They may take nine months, or even longer. The period may stretch into the autumn, unless there is to be a press release the day after Parliament rises for the summer recess

announcing the conclusions of the review, thus repeating the very unfortunate and wrong procedure under which the review was started. Will the British people be given an equivalent period of time in which to mull over the very complicated issues involved, so that they can form a proper view about whatever options the Government may put forward?
These are serious matters. We are not talking about a failed public enterprise which is dominated by militant unions, which has had no commercial success and no record of productivity. We are talking about a very important business which has a record of productivity and commercial success and whose operations are directly linked to the operations of tens of thousands of small businesses, which are a structural part of that public enterprise. Much hangs on the review. The time is well past, in every sense of the term, for the Minister to tell us about the Government's view on these matters.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Technology (Mr. Edward Leigh): I thank all those hon. Members who have taken part in the debate. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, south (Mr. Marshall) for making this debate possible and I join him in paying tribute to the staff of the Post Office. It is not often, despite the very long hours that we keep in the House, that we beat Post Office staff out of bed, but as we speak, at 3.16 am, the wheels of that mighty organisation are turning so as to ensure that about 60 million letters are delivered, most of them on time. We should be grateful to the 200,000 members of staff of the Post Office for the dedicated work that they do on behalf of us all.
Since no decisions have yet been taken on the future organisation and structure of the Post Office, I shall have to disappoint the hon. Member for Newcastle, Central (Mr. Cousins) and tell him that I am not yet in a position to announce what the future will look like. It is an important policy area and we are considering a number of factors. However, I should like to address the framework within which the Post Office, whatever the outcome of the review, will operate.
Some people argue—I note that this is the opinion of my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South—that the Post Office should be changed, denationalised and demonopolised and that postal markets should be set completely free. They argue that this is the only way in which consumers can have real choice. Others are asking, however, why we are reviewing the Post Office at all. There are people who say that the Post Office should be left well alone, including—as one might expect—Opposition Front-Bench Members.

Mr. Cousins: I do not wish to be misunderstoood on this point. I made it crystal clear in my speech that we want the Post Office to be taken out of the constraints of the negative external financing limit system.

Mr. Leigh: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for saying that. I am also grateful for the advice that he has given us on the workings of the negative EFL system. I take it, therefore, that he is one of those who accept that it was right of the Government to undertake this review. I shall be delighted to give way if the hon. Gentleman wishes to intervene to say that we were wrong to do so.

Mr. Cousins: I am most grateful to the Minister. A review was certainly necessary in the context of the commercial possibilities of the British Post Office in the European Community, especially in view of the discussion about liberalisation of postal markets throughout the Community, but that need not have taken the eight months that the Government have already spent—and on the basis of what the Minister has said tonight, it seems likely that many more months will be required.

Mr. Leigh: This is a very complex matter. The hon. Gentleman has mentioned the current review. In fact, the Commission is working extremely slowly on this matter, which is highly complex. Its report is still in draft form. Given the complexity of the Post Office, an eight-month review is not over-long. We are listening to a very wide variety of views and are conducting a very thorough and careful study. I am sure that hon. Members recognise that that is the right thing to do.
The Post Office has made great strides in the last few years—certainly since my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South last raised the subject, in an Adjournment debate in June 1990. The House will want to pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the very close interest that he has taken in these matters and the great skill and knowledge that he brings to them.
I will reiterate why we are conducting a review of the future organisation and structure of the Post Office. As my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade said on 29 July last year. The Post Office is facing a period of considerable change. Post Office Counters faces growing competition in a number of its markets. Royal Mail no longer has a monopoly over express products and unaddressed mail. Its direct mail services face competition from other forms of advertising, and competition from the telecommunications sector is ever-growing. Indeed, there is a growing interest world wide in the potential advantages of freeing up postal markets.
The hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central informed the House about these new opportunities. The time has arrived to consider the potential impact of these changes on the Post Office and, in particular, whether its current organisation and structure should remain as they are. We have to pose the question: "Could the consumer and taxpayer get a better deal?" That is the whole purpose of the review. In short, it is not enough simply to rest on our oars. I am sure that, whatever disagreements we may have, we agree about that.
I must stress that, when my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade announced the review, he emphasised that the Government remain committed to a nationwide letter service, with delivery to every address in the United Kingdom, within a uniform and affordable structure of prices, and with a nationwide network of post offices. He said then, and I repeat now, that those commitments are not negotiable and will remain at the heart of public policy towards the Post Office. All the alternative ownership and structural options are being examined with this in the forefront of our minds. Any reform must satisfy those non-negotiable commitments.
With regard to Royal Mail, I should like to dwell in a little more detail on the non-negotiable commitments to which I have already referred: a universal letter service, within a uniform and affordable tariff structure. A universal service commitment clearly means a delivery every working day to every address in the country. Royal

Mail will continue to provide this. Indeed, in most areas of the country there are two deliveries a day, so the commitment is currently not only met, but exceeded.
The Government are committed to an affordable uniform tariff structure. But what is a uniform tariff? Self-evidently, a uniform tariff does not mean that every piece of mail will cost eactly the same to send.

Mr. Cousins: Let me recap. We are trying to put straws together to make a house. What the Minister has just said is of some significance. Does he regard a second delivery each day—a unique feature of the British system—not as part of the universal service but as some optional extra that could be negotiated away?

Mr. Leigh: A second delivery is not available to all households in all parts of the country, but I think that the House is well aware what a universal service obligation means. We shall ensure that it is met.
I was dealing with the tariff structure, which is of interest to the House. Charges may vary with weight steps, and there are discounts for pre-sorting. What we mean by a uniform tariff is that we will not allow the Royal Mail to adopt any form of zonal pricing. It will cost no more to send the same article from the Scilly isles to the Shetland islands than it will to send it from Hendon to Golders Green. When considering the future of the Royal Mail, we asked how best we could satisfy the fundamental social concerns over universal service at a uniform tariff and make things better for consumers.
There are essentially three major issues for the future of the Royal Mail the competitive structure, the regulatory environment, and the question of ownership. I shall speak briefly about each, as they have formed the main concerns for the future environment in which the mail services of the Post Office will operate.
We believe that the right competitive environment is essential for improving services to the customer, and we began the review with an examination of whether any market restrictions are necessary to ensure a universal service and a uniform tariff structure.
Some have argued that no restrictions are necessary—my hon. Friend may hold that view—that we should allow free competition to enable the most efficient operator to exploit economies of scale, and that we would still be able to offer a universal service at a uniform and affordable price. Indeed, I hear my hon. Friend make these points about the monopoly and argue that the only way to have a Post Office which is efficient and genuinely responsive to consumers' needs is to subject it to full competition. I am always keen to examine the potential scope for liberalisation, but I have to say that I do not think that full deregulation is appropriate here. Some routes would be inherently unprofitable, and a free market would not provide them at an affordable price.
I represent a rural constituency, and I am sure that the House will recognise that I of all people want to ensure that rural areas are not disadvantaged in the future. The Government believe that the outcome of such a free-for-all, at least for some users—I have in mind especially those living in rural areas—would be higher prices and a poorer quality of service. We therefore reject a free-for-all.
Others have argued that we should permit the entry of more than one firm into the monopoly area, provided that they also have an obligation to deliver mail to every


address in the country. The argument here is that the efficiency gains which will emerge as a result of competitive presssure will be beneficial. This is theoretically attractive and is certainly not ruled out, but we need to be careful. There is a possibility that the loss of economies of scale, particularly at the delivery end, would lead only to higher costs. We must therefore consider these matters carefully.
However, I am certain that some increased competition is possible and desirable. The question then is what competition we can introduce while protecting the social commitments. We are already committed, as part of the citizens charter, to reducing the current £1 monopoly to a level nearer the price of a first-class stamp. My hon. Friend made a particular point about that. But what should the monopoly level be? Again, there are a number of views, and I am not in a position to say what we will do.
The second way of introducing competition into postal services is less direct, but may be just as significant in the long run. It is known, in the usual appalling jargon, as "downstream access". In the citizens charter, the Government proposed to extend the current range of discounts for users such as those who pre-sort their mail. Further discounts will be available to those who also trunk their mail to the final delivery office. Discounts might also be extended in the future to third party consolidators.
However, it would again be important to ensure that this did not weaken Royal Mail's ability to deliver the universal service and uniform tariff. I am sure that there are ways of introducing competition while still protecting the universal service and uniform tariff, and that is what we shall attempt to do, because it is only as a result of competition that we shall ensure that we get a better and better service.
To sum up on competition, we shall consider only proposals which do not in any way endanger the social commitments that we have made. We shall proceed on the basis of known effects, step by step. I reassure the House that we shall not introduce change for the sake of change.

Mr. Cousins: Clearly a major retreat is taking place, and it is causing the Minister some embarrassment. None the less, the retreat is in the right direction, so we welcome it. When the review is concluded, and the results are shared with the rest of us, will there still be options to be taken and resolved? Will the Minister have advanced and completed all those step by step stages that he mentioned, or will there be a concluded package? When the review is over, will there still be steps to be taken—backwards, perhaps, in the Minister's opinion—or shall we then have the final package? It is quite important for us to know that.

Mr. Leigh: The hon. Gentleman's arguments are becoming somewhat Byzantine, even for 3.30 in the morning. The review is internal and we are considering all the options. We have long since made it clear—we made it clear in our manifesto—that we intended to introduce more competition into postal services. I make it absolutely clear again that that will happen. We said in the manifesto that we intended to set up an independent regulator to report to the Secretary of State—the President of the Board of Trade—to oversee that competition. There is nothing unusual about that, and I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman does not seem to think that competition in that form would be beneficial.
Let me make it clear that we shall not allow the future provision of the social commitments to be a simple act of faith; nor will we allow necessary restrictions on competition to be an excuse for the abuse of monopoly power. It is vital that we maintain a regulatory framework to ensure that the interests of consumers are protected. The framework in which the Post Office currently operates was structured in 1969. Some of the models that we have developed during the 1980s have shown that there are better regulatory regimes than the traditional nationalised industries model of the 1960s.
Before I go on to speak about the question of future ownership of the Post Office, I wish to talk briefly about Post Office Counters. My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South started by talking about that subject, and I know that he feels strongly about it.
In our manifesto, we gave a clear, unfettered commitment to a nationwide network of post offices. What does that mean in practice? It means that we are committed to maintaining a readily accessible network which meets the social industrial and commercial needs of the United Kingdom. Post offices and their customers throughout the country can rest assured that, whatever solution we adopt for the Post Office and its constituent parts, whether in the public or the private sector, that commitment will not be compromised.
Any organisation serving 28 million customers a year through a network of 20,000 offices—about twice the number of all the banks put together—dearly has major strengths in reach. But if it is operating in a series of low-margin businesses, not protected by any statutory monopoly, it must be constantly on its guard to keep its costs down and to respond flexibly as some of its products decline and others increase.
Post Office Counters is responding to the decline in some product sectors, such as national insurance stamps, by developing other business areas, such as stationery retailing, and it hopes to make use of its huge network to play an important part in the selling of national lottery tickets. We have recently given it powers to enable it to diversify into that business, which could fit very well with its core businesses.
I note what my hon. Friend has said about the ownership structure of Post Office Counters, and his view that we should continue the process towards full privatisation, which has been continuing for many years, but we need to consider how best we can equip the Post Office to develop new business in a rapidly changing world. Can that best be done in a public sector environment?
Of course, 19,000 of the 20,000 post offices are already owned and run by private business men, and that proportion will increase as the Crown conversion programme develops. I pay tribute to the 19,000 sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses whose commitment and hard work make it possible for the Post Office to continue to serve communities throughout the United Kingdom, even in far-flung rural areas where banks, building societies and most other retailers no longer operate. Our review must help us to determine what structure for Post Office Counters will best secure a bright future for those thousands of small businesses and protect the interests of all their customers.
On the question of ownership, we have to consider whether the competition and regulation framework we decide upon is more appropriate to a Post Office in the


private or the public sector. It will come as no surprise that, in general terms, the Government believe in the advantages of private sector ownership. Indeed, I believe our experiences over the last 14 years have clearly demonstrated the enormous benefits, both to the consumer and to the taxpayer, of transferring businesses to the wealth-creating private sector. I have noted the remarks of my hon. Friend about the experience of nationalised industries which have been privatised.
For the Post Office, it is important that we get the sequence of decisions right. We must decide upon a competition and regulatory regime and then consider the alternatives for ownership—again always applying the acid test of what is in the best interests of consumers.
The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central mentioned Parcelforce on 15 July last year, as he said, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of 'Trade announced to the House that it was the Government's intention to sell Parcelforce. Parcelforce operates in a fully competitive parcels market. The majority of its traffic is business traffic. I believe that Parcelforce can flourish in the private sector. It has a distinctive brand image and a large customer base—strengths on which it can build.
We are currently examining the most appropriate method and timing for transferring Parcelforce into the private sector. It faces competition across a range of its activities. The vast majority of its traffic is accounted for by products sent to or from businesses, yet it offers a universal service at a uniform and affordable tariff, which we have pledged ourselves to maintain—another non-negotiable commitment.
We have been considering the future of Parcelforce alongside the future of Royal Mail and Post Office Counters, but our intention to privatise Parcelforce should not necessarily be taken as implying that the rest of the Post Office will be privatised. That will be decided on its own merits. Indeed, when my right hon. Friend announced the review, he made it clear that we would be considering continued public sector options as well as private sector options.
Before concluding, I should like to deal briefly with the views of the Post Office Board. The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central made great play of the views of the chairman of the Post Office. As I understand his remarks in the Select Committee, the Post Office

chairman made the point that a decision on the review was desirable by the end of the first half of this year. As the hon. Gentleman made clear, the Post Office Board has made no secret of the fact that it is seeking changes in the current regulatory structure. In particular, I note that the Post Office has said that it wants to be free from Government controls on investment and wants more commercial freedom.
I should make it clear that Post Office capital investment has been running at record levels over the last three years. External financing limits which we set last year were specifically designed to enable those record levels to continue over the next three years—some £900 million in total. That sets in context some of the hon. Gentleman's remarks.

Mr. Cousins: Will the Minister confirm that the Post Office's investment programme, comparing the current year, 1993–94, with the previous year, 1992–93, shows decline both in cash terms and in real terms? In other words, his assurance that the investment programme is being maintained is not borne out.

Mr. Leigh: Obviously there will be variations from time to time in the capital investment of the Post Office. The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. He regaled the House for 25 to 30 minutes with a description of the virtues of the Post Office. He said that it was the best in the world, the most efficient and all the rest of it. Has he forgotten that we have had a Conservative Government for the best part of 14 years? We have invested in the Post Office, we have ensured that it is the best, and we intend to leave it that way. We have undertaken a review to ensure that the Post Office responds to the opportunities, referred to by the hon. Gentleman, which are coming into world global markets.
In conclusion, this has been a valuable debate. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South is satisfied with the assurances that I have given. The review has confirmed our faith in the Post Office's ability to rank high among Britain's world-class, world-beating organisations. It will continue to thrive, break more of its records for customer service and pass on the benefits of ever greater efficiency to business and individual customers. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for allowing the House to debate this important subject.

Orders of the Day — London Ambulance Service

Mr. Nigel Spearing: It is with no pleasure that I introduce this debate about the relationship of Ministers and their accountability to the London ambulance service. The debate may well be important because it is a classic one for bringing Ministers to account. Although the hour is either late or early, whichever one chooses, our words are being recorded.
The London ambulance service is a tragedy which has focused on failure. The failure of the service was not surprising to many of us, unfortunately, as there has been a long period of decline, disorganisation, disintegration and, indeed, maladministration of a service which was once the best in the world. Alas, we cannot say that today. The decline in standards of public service which the LAS has experienced has been entirely under a succession of Ministers or Secretaries of State of one political persuasion.
I do not want to make too much of political differences tonight, although they may emerge in any investigation which takes place. I had hoped that, in this vital public service in which there can be no disagreement about the need for its presence and efficiency, there would be no difference. If there is a difference—a difference has, unfortunately, emerged—we must draw some bigger lessons from it, but not immediately.
We must draw some lessons from the vital matter of public accountability, especially when such a service is funded by the public and is run in any way other than as a visible public service. The emergency service at least is run in such a way. The service is run in such a way that its efficiency can be measured easily, yet there has been a most tremendous, tragic and, indeed, fatal failure.
Earlier, I said that the failure is not surprising to some of us. One of the reasons why I am both sorry and glad to have this debate is that I have followed the matter closely for more than six years. There have been seven debates on this matter since 1986, excluding all the debates that took place during the tragic dispute.
The first debate I remember was on 15 May 1986. It was raised by a Conservative Member—I think it was the hon. Member for Ravensbourne (Sir J. Hunt). I had Adjournment debates, to which I shall refer in a moment, on 31 October 1986 and 14 May 1987. There were Consolidated Fund Bill debates on 8 December 1987 and 20 December 1989. I presented a petition on 7 December 1989. There was an Adjournment debate on 18 April 1991 and a Public Accounts Committee debate on 17 October 1991 before I asked the Secretary of State for Health a private notice question on 28 October 1992, following the tragic collapse of the system on 26 October 1992.
In passing, I should ask how many debates have taken place about the London fire service. I do not recall any such debate. I wonder how many questions there have been about the London fire service. There have been few such questions.
We must ask ourselves why there is a difference between two services which are not dissimilar. One deals with property and the other deals with life. One would have thought that life and human suffering, distress and grief might have the priority of the two.
The London ambulance service has been a matter not only for debate. Hon. Members, including those who

support the Administration, have sent letter after letter to Ministers. They have asked parliamentary question after parliamentary question. As I have just described, there has been debate after debate. However, as far as I can see from the evidence—the Minister may say something to the contrary—Ministers have not taken any notice. Indeed, the Minister who is present tonight, the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Sackville), has not taken any notice, as I shall proceed to demonstrate.
I take Parliament seriously because ordinary people who pay taxes—however taxes are levied and whether they are fair or unfair—have no other means than Parliament of ensuring that the money which they collectively contribute is administered properly. This is the last place. It is either this or bullets.
Ministers not taking notice also reveals something else. Some time ago I read books about politics, perhaps idealistic ones, which said something like, "A wise Minister uses parliamentary questions as a searchlight to throw light on the nooks and crannies of every aspect of his or her Department." Unfortunately, the searchlight of parliamentary debate and questions in the past six years and even recently has been blanked out by Ministers.
Was it deliberately or through inefficiency? That question must be answered. I will try to answer it. If it is either cause, some action must be taken. That is why London Members signed an early-day motion about ministerial resignations. That is serious and I wish to say why, alas, resignations are necessary.
After that introduction, I intended my speech to have three parts. The first was the events that took place in the tragic run-up to the collapse of October 1992 and the events that some of us almost foresaw. The second was what happened after the collapse, and the lack of action by both the Secretary of State and the Minister. I do not know who was responsible. I suppose that the Secretary of State is responsible in the end. If the Minister did not tell her what was going on, he is responsible. So one of them is responsible.
I know that the Secretary of State and the Minister inherited a situation, but Ministers who inherit a situation have the opportunity and the duty to find out what it is and, if it is unsatisfactory, to do something about it. But, as I shall demonstrate in a moment, both the Ministers who are in office at present did not do so. Indeed, I believe that, although they have taken some action, it was not what is required.
The third matter is the action that the Secretary of State and the Minister did or did not take, subsequent to the inquiry report which was published a few weeks ago. This is the first opportunity that the House has had to debate that report. An unexpected fourth part of my speech is the events of yesterday. A ministerial statement has been made and letters have been sent from the Secretary of State to the chairman of the South West Thames regional health authority, which I read about in the newspapers. I obtained the press release on application to the Library earlier today.
The Secretary of State may have sent London Members copies of the press release which have not yet arrived. Perhaps the.Post Office, which we discussed in the previous debate, is not efficient. Certainly, I had to take my own initiative to find out what the letters said. Given that we were to have a debate on the matter tonight, that is a little surprising.
Before I embark on the history of the London ambulance service, I want to say something about the staff. I regard the ambulance staff of the London ambulance service as some of the finest people I have met, but they have been denigrated and criticised. In letter after letter and statement after statement, their alleged shortcomings have been made at least part of the excuse for what is going wrong.
I am very sorry that the Minister who is here tonight—I emphasise "the Minister" in his ministerial capacity, not as a Member of the House—was party to that. I do not know who served up that sort of information. I am not going to say that everybody is a saint, but I believe that the collective guilt that has on occasion been landed in the direction of the ambulance staff has no, or very little, basis in fact; certainly not the sort of basis that the Minister, in letter after letter, and the publicity machine of the administration of the ambulance service have implied.
The number of ambulance staff who reach retirement is not very great. The number of ambulance staff who have a very long retirement is very small indeed. You and I appreciate, Madam Deputy Speaker—indeed, I hope that all hon. Members, including Ministers, appreciate—the strain experienced by those emergency staff who have to deal with a succession of human grief and tragedy, not knowing what is coming next. By the very nature of their occupation, the strain is pretty great. It is difficult watching it on television sometimes when we know that it is real; we can only imagine what it is like when one is in the middle of it.
I regard the staff of the London ambulance service as professional Samaritans, and they must be given the tools for the job. I recall that, in interpreting that parable, which one hopes is still a basis of our society, one well-known person was heard to remark that it was very good that the Samaritan had some money to pay the innkeeper. What the person who made that remark forgot was that, in giving the money to the innkeeper, the Samaritan told him to do what was necessary for the man and he, the Samaritan, would repay him. He did not put a cost cap on it. In other words, it was demand-led, and that, until recently, is what the London ambulance service was.
Let us look at what has happened. Up to the mid-1970s, the London ambulance service, was, of course, run by the Greater London council, directly accountable to a committee and to elected members, one per parliamentary constituency. So any shortcomings on any matter relating to things that were going wrong could be dealt with verbally by members, or if necessary by letter to the chairman of the committee—all in minutes, all account-able; a monthly meeting at least, and discussed if necessary at a meeting of the council.
That was changed. I will not go into the details—it may have been a mistake; it may not have been—but things began to go wrong in the mid-1980s, in particular in the summer of 1986. That was when I first became involved.
I began to get heartrending letters from people who, by definition, were sick, and many of them elderly, and who had appointments at out-patient departments. We all know how many people go in and out of hospital pretty quickly these days and have to go back for out-patient treatment. Some of them will not get well. Those appointments were being cancelled because there were no ambulances. I do not mean the stretch-out variety; I mean the ones with tailboards and skilled staff. Many of the patients had crutches, and that sort of thing, so skill was

needed. I have heard from the staff that it is not just the emergency people who suffer strain, because there are people up and down stairs and in and out of houses, and people who are very sick and have to be given assistance.
I wanted to find out what went wrong, and that was the subject of my first Adjournment debate, on 31 October 1986. It was replied to by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie), a rather well-known personality, now on the Back Benches. I was astounded by the key sentence in that debate, which I will repeat. She said:
About 10,500 fewer walking patients were being transported—a reduction of 44 per cent. I am more than happy at that development."—[Official Report, 31 October 1986; Vol. 103, c. 666.]
I nearly fainted when I heard that.
I shall make no further remarks about that particular former Minister except to say that anyone who has the opportunity to use someone who made such a comment should consider whether that remark was a qualification or a disqualification for public office.
I corresponded with the Minister and discovered that the justification for that remark was a belief that there had been abuse of the patient transport service, which was complementary to the emergency service. I believe that it is now put out to tender and that, in certain areas, the London ambulance service has lost to the competition. Heaven knows what will happen to the stability of the service if it comes up for tender every year, but I mention that only in passing.
When the then Minister said there had been abuse of the service, I asked for proof, both in writing and in parliamentary questions. Proof there came none, so I put it down to personal eccentricity. Those who know the hon. Lady—of course I told her that I would be mentioning her tonight—will know what I mean. The other reason she put forward with great eloquence during the debate and subsequently was that the patient transport service needed to be cut to keep the front-line emergency service, which she praised to the skies, running properly.
I believe that the general cuts were due to the Rayner study. A paper was published by an official of the West Midlands ambulance service and that was the beginning of a reduction in resources to the London ambulance service. It was cost-budget capped.
In subsequent debates, the excuse by Ministers was that cost capping was required throughout public expenditure. The Minister would argue that the Labour Government did that, too. That is arguable. However, whatever the arguments about the level of the patient transport service, the emergency service must be demand-led within the Orcon standard, which is well known throughout the country. It is essential to provide the resources to achieve the Orcon standard, which is, by common consent, a reasonable standard of service. That was not happening. The tap was being turned down and the London ambulance service was carrying deficits year after year. I tried with difficulty to find the accounts.
Then the Government had the effrontery to apply a 3 per cent. efficiency reduction. Organisations such as Sainsbury, Tesco and Boots do that to keep the management on their toes, and the Government thought they could apply value for money to that vital service. Of course, it did not work. There were difficulties about pay and so on until the tragic dispute—I use the word "tragic" advisedly.
The Secretary of State at the time was the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), who had started what I believe and what history will judge as a trail of destruction through the health service and the education service. Now he has been arrested—in the other sense of the word—by the police. We now have the promise of a police board for London to which I hope the current Home Secretary or any future Home Secretary will not repeatedly refer us, rather than to the Minister responsible.
In response to the White Paper "Working for Patients", published in January 1989, under the guise of the rather tenuous paragraphs 2.8 and 2.9, the South-West Thames regional health authority created the London Ambulance Board. Most people would not have a clue about who runs the ambulances in London—they might now, however, because of recent unhappy publicity. They were the responsibility of one regional health authority, which covers only a quarter of the London area and whose area, incidentally, goes well beyond London. The ambulance service was just one of its responsibilities. The money supply went down at about the time that the London Ambulance Board was created. Full members of the regional health authority had been on a panel managing the ambulance service and they were answerable to the Secretary of State.
During an Adjournment debate on 20 December 1989, the then Under-Secretary of State for Health, a most courteous Minister, who is not unacquainted with financial matters, made a remarkable statement about the London ambulance service, when he said:
It cannot be financed as a demand-led service such as unemployment benefit or the prescription of drugs."—[Official Report, 20 December 1989; Vol. 164, c. 528.]
A doctor is free to prescribe drugs—apart from being subject to sensible limits that are set after certain procedures have been followed—but he cannot even prescribe an emergency ambulance. That is what the junior Minister for Health, the predecessor but three or four of the Minister now present, said in 1989. We were then cost-capping an emergency service.
I know that the Government have changed their view a bit since then, but only after enormous pressure. But even today, after the tragedies that we have seen in London, in some respects their view has not changed.
Things got worse. The poor staff were at their wits' end and they petitioned Parliament. On Friday 7 December 1990, I presented a petition on their behalf which had been signed by more than 300 members of the London ambulance service. It said of the dispute:
the root causes of that dispute have not yet been addressed and therefore unless and until there is a full and proper public examination of the financing, organisation and operation of the London ambulance service there remains a great and continuing risk to the health and welfare of all Londoners."—[Official Report, 7 December 1990; Vol. 182, c. 563.]
The petition also called on the Select Committee on Health to consider the matter, but, unfortunately, the then Select Committee did not do so. I helped to create the departmental Select Committee system and I deeply regret the fact that that Committee has postponed its study of the London ambulance service yet again. I hope that this debate will help it to reconsider that decision, because things went from bad to worse.
Between December 1990 and January and February 1991, we were back in the cancellation game. On Thursday

18 April 1991, I initiated a debate on several matters relating to the ambulance service. They included up to 10,000 cancelled out-patient journeys a month; extended response times to emergency calls, which were getting longer and longer; telephone stacking of 999 calls, which was becoming increasingly common, and the limit on ambulance crews to two hours voluntary overtime a week.
In addition, some 50 dedicated and experienced ambulance officers were made redundant due to the prospective privatisation of some of the service. An error was made in ordering a computer in 1991. An application was made for self-governing status—I know that that is more political, but it was a complicating factor because the patient ambulance service was to be subject to competition, which meant that people were worried about their jobs. The London Ambulance Board was invisible and virtually unaccountable to the London public.
The debate took place, another junior Minister was in the hot seat and none of those accusations or criticisms was questioned or dealt with. The only comment was, "We will do better." At the end of the debate—surprise, surprise—the Minister announced that £5 million additional capital had just been voted a week or two earlier by the South West Thames regional health authority, of which £3·5 million was for vehicles. If that money was necessary then, it should have been necessary before. In order to get the headlines on the accepted deficiencies, the Government threw money at them. But they did not necessarily provide money for more crews—just replacement vehicles and other capital equipment.
We were told that the provisions were due to the whizzo new chief executive, Mr. Wilby, who had been appointed by South West Thames regional health authority to make everything right. But the Opposition had had some contact with that gentleman—both on paper and in other ways. We knew that he was having to act on instructions cascading down from the Secretary of State—it was national policy. The Secretary of State appointed the regional health authority, which appointed Mr. Wilby—who was accountable to the authority. The authority also appointed the London Ambulance Board. Therefore, those involved were appointees of appointees.
If, in a private capacity, you, Madam Deputy Speaker, or the Minister wanted to see the Secretary of State on behalf of a number of Members, and were told that a meeting would be granted with the Under-Secretary, I know what the response would be. We had the same response; we wanted to see the then Secretary of State for Health, the right hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave), but he would not see us and said that we must first go to see Mr. Wilby. We said that we would not because, politically, the Secretary of State was responsible. Some time later, I had a long conversation lasting two hours with that gentleman, in which we discussed his programme and his plans for executing it. I was not convinced at all by what he was saying, which did not add up in practical terms.
We tabled an early-day motion stating that the Secretary of State was undemocratic because he would not see us. We were going to tell him what was going on. Later, there were more delays, which became longer and longer and there were more and more reports. Last summer I wrote three letters—one to the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health who is present tonight, and, in desperation, a third one to the Secretary of State.
The present. Secretary of State is a well-known character who is always on the radio. She always looks as though she could join the ambulance service herself. I thought that she might be being over-protected by her private office, which is not unknown, as you, Madam Deputy Speaker, will know. I took special steps to ensure that my letter to the Secretary of State of 4 September would be read by her. I shall not quote the whole letter, but parts of it. It said:
Can you doubt that consequential long and unjustifiable delays in attendance over the Orcon standard of 14 minutes is and will cost lives?
The letter continued:
Apart from admission of inadequacies in electronic equipment, official statements from the LAS have concentrate-ed on alleged absenteeism and a need to re-roster duties. However the Chairman of the London Ambulance Service will neither confirm nor deny my allegation to him that service is being cut by up to 20 per cent. reduction in overtime necessary to keep within budget limits.
In other words., budget capping was stopping staff doing voluntary overtime. I know that there is controversy about what is necessary over the weekend, but that concerns the national agreement.
Again, I went back to the question of demand-led service. I concluded:
Will we have to wait until some celebrity dies after a delay of half an hour or more for an ambulance after a heart attack—as two ladies, now dead, had to do in Newham recently—before an enraged electorate discovers that contrary to their assumption resources for the emergency ambulances are not geared to the actual demand.
That was my third letter on the subject in that dreadful summer.
I had to wait 24 days for an answer. I had expected that the right hon. Lady, who is well acquainted with London affairs, for obvious reasons, to reply. Instead, it was the Under-Secretary, who is here to reply to the debate. I shall read some of his letter, which is dated 28 September. He said:
The information the computer holds about ambulance status and availability may, therefore, be out of date. LAS is still, therefore, having to use allocated/despatchers to check out the status of the ambulances, when it would prefer those allocated/despatchers to be reassigned to call-taking.
That was a staff matter. The next part is the most important. He said:
The problem currrently faced is behavioural rather than technical and lies with a proportion of the crews failing to use simple procedures to notify their status. The CAD system itself is functioning correctly at a technical level.
The crews were telling me that it was not. I said to Mr.Harris, whom I met that summer, "If you try to put this computer in, it might work, but it won't do awfully much for getting people to hopital better because of the lack of crews on the ground. Re-rostering, whatever you do with it, won't do the trick." I had hoped that the computer might work, but it did not, and we all know the result.
There was then this sentence from the Under-Secretary, who is another Derbyshire echo:
The NHS, as you know, is cash limited. The onus is on NHS services to meet the demands made upon them, within budget. This cannot be achieved without good management and co-operation from staff. These expectations must apply just as much to ambulance services as they do to other elements of the NHS.
In the LAS we have the technical means and human and vehicle resources to make the emergency service demand-led in the only way that makes sense, that is that ambulances are sent, quickly, to everyone who asks for one. But we need the full involvement of staff in notifying their status and within few weeks accepting new rosters.

Within a month, the whole thing broke down. The Minister apparently did not even look at the problem to find out what was going wrong—as it was, and as most people knew that it would.
What was worse was that, between January 1992 and the failure of the system entirely, over 40 delays were associated with death. I am not saying that there were 40 deaths due to delays. We do not know, do we? However, I wonder whether any of the 40 sets of relatives think that. I have a list here, which was compiled from local newspapers, of those incidents, which occurred before the thing went wrong. Irrespective of the computer failure, things were going wrong.
Subsequent to the collapse on 9 March 1993, a written answer from the Under-Secretary showed that, in June 1992, 90 per cent. of the calls were within 25 minutes, but 10 per cent. were after 25 minutes. That means that one in 10 ambulances called arrived at the scene 25 minutes or more after the call went out. That does not include the time that some callers had to wait listening to a recorded message. Instead, I am talking of the time from when the control room received the call.
The story becomes worse as it continues. I had asked for information about the number of ambulances that arrived half an hour after a call. I wanted to know the exact intervals. I am sure that the Minister, when he was a Back-Bench Member, would not have accepted what he wrote to me. Unfortunately, it is an answer that all Back-Bench Members receive from time to time. His response was:
A breakdown of call response times above 25 minutes could be obtained only at disproportionate cost to the London ambulance service."—[Official Report, 9 March 1993; Vol. 220, c. 499.]
As I have said, 10 per cent. of ambulances arrived at the scene 25 minutes or more after being called in June 1992. The service could not give a more precise distribution of the times taken for ambulances to arrive at the scene. The Minister had the neck to allow that answer to leave the Department. I wonder whether he asked the service why there would be a disproportionate cost. It shows that those involved were not on the job. How can anyone who is in charge of a London ambulance service be ignorant of the extent of delays of half an hour or longer? Of course, the Minister's answer appeared in Hansard.
The real answer came to me in a plain brown envelope. I suppose that my question had been spotted. My goodness, the ambulance people watch this place now. I was sent a clipsheet and a five-bar-gate form. The times in minutes are entered after the first response. At the end of the form there is "26+". The form starts with 0, 1, 2, and 3, and at the end of the page there is 26. In other words, the LAS records the number of response times after 26 minutes. If the Minister had obtained an answer to my question, the LAS would have had to go through all the forms, which of course would have cost a great deal of money. It is clear, however, that the service was not monitoring what it was doing. Is that the public administration and efficiency for which we are looking?
Some London Members had had enough. The report of the inquiry showed what had gone wrong so often. Early-day motion 1498 read:
That this House deplores the absence of preventative action that should have been taken by successive Secretaries of State and their departmental Ministers subsequent to receive warnings".


We listed all the things that had gone wrong and said that someone should resign.
Each month there were 10,000 cancelled patient journeys. That means that over three or four months there would be 30,000 to 40,000 cancellations during 1992. That means 40,000-plus emergency service serious delays. But before things went wrong in 1992, what about 1991? Does that mean 80,000?
I tabled another question about overtime:
To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will now make it her policy to ensure that all offers of voluntary overtime by ambulances crews that would fill gaps that would otherwise occur in the scheduled rostering are not subject to budget restriction.
The question was answered by the Under-Secretary as follows:
All national health service providers, including ambulance services, must provide services within the resources allocated to them. It is for individual ambulance services to manage overtime levels within the overall staffing budget and to ensure that staff are rostered to provide services to the public."—[Official Report, 3 March 1993; Vol. 220, c. 172.]
My goodness me! The Minister who let that by—his name is on the answer—is sitting on the Government Front Bench. This is accountability at work.
The delays are continuing, but they are fewer than they were because there has been some tightening up. The staff are keen and there is a new atmosphere. Why not let the service have the money to enable it to get crews out in ambulances, crews who are willing to do the work? I know that there are industrial relations problems. One reason for them is that the late Mr. Wilby—he is not literally dead, but he is as far as the service is concerned—would not meet people to discuss them.
It is about time to place all this on record—that is what Parliament is all about. There was an unexpected development yesterday as a result of the inquiry, which recommended certain actions. The Secretary of State wrote to South West Thames regional health authority requesting details of its plans. Yesterday, the Secretary of State wrote back to Dr. Marion Hicks, the RHA's chairman, and was pretty sharp in what she said.
The Secretary of State referred to the London Ambulance Board as something of an experiment and stated that the board and the RHA were
unclear about their respective roles and responsibilities. Nor were they robust enough to respond to the computer problem facing the LAS. It is therefore right that you should replace them with a clearer and simpler set of arrangements.
I understand that the London Ambulance Board has disappeared in a puff of smoke. It was fairly irregular anyway—founded upon a couple of lines in a White Paper. I tried to ascertain its statutory basis in either the 1977 or 1990 Act, but was unable to do so. Perhaps the Minister can inform the House. It was one of those hands-off affairs, but that was Government policy—originally under the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe when he was Secretary of State for Health, and continued by successive Ministers.
If there was a lack of public accountability—clearly there was, because the Minister said so—that was the responsibility of the Government. Only a few years ago, a councillor in West Ham or East Ham in my constituency could have knocked on the council's door to find out why

the ambulance service was not working properly. Now that has to be done in the House. What a way to run an ambulance service and a health service.
The Secretary of State's letter goes on:
In the medium term, the aim must be to move the LAS towards Trust status as soon as possible, creating the normal pattern of accountability of an NHS provider.
I do not know what is
the normal pattern of accountability",
but it is certainly not trust status—not for that sort of service.
The Secretary of State goes on:
This means abolishing the Board and making the LAS Chief Executive directly responsible to the Regional Health Authority for all aspects of LAS management and performance.
I thought that that was what already happened. The board appointed Mr. Wilby and he tendered his resignation to the board. What was the board doing? Presumably the board resigned so that it could be trumpeted round the country that something had happened, when it appears that the board did not have much power anyway. It was a phantom board that was not in control. Mr. Wilby was in control, but hardly anybody else.
I tried to find out from the RHA whether the public minutes recorded anything to do with the LAS, but I do not think that there is much there.
The Secretary of State's letter continues:
We both recognise that to make the new arrangements work will require thorough and rigorous public scrutiny of the LAS by your Authority.
That presumably means that the board of South West Thames regional health authority appointed by the Secretary of State will act for the public in scrutinising the LAS. I thought that public scrutiny related to elected representatives—whether in respect of borough councils, county councils or Parliament. How can appointed representatives scrutinise a public authority when they are accountable only to the Secretary of State who appoints them?
We have the Secretary of State trying to reassure us as recently as yesterday. The last sentence of her letter reads:
I shall expect regular reports on progress from the NHS Chief Executive and will hold the RHA rigorously to account for its performance in managing the LAS.
I think that we should call Ministers to account for the way in which they have mismanaged things.
I was not going to say this before I read that document, which is now in the Library. Overtime is still being capped, despite two or three requests in letters and questions; a phantom board, which did not have much responsibility anyway, has resigned; and the Secretary of State talks about confidence. In, I believe, a press release, she said that there would be no more confidence in the LAS until the appropriate steps were taken.
I suggest to the right hon. Lady that there will not be much confidence until she changes her policy, or we change our Secretary of State. In early-day motion 1498, we asked the responsible Minister to depart. The Secretary of State and the Minister are both people of integrity, but I do not think that they understand the jobs of Secretary of State and Minister if they can write such tosh in an attempt to get off the hook. For years, thousands of people in London have been subjected to suffering, grief and difficulty.
I quoted from the Minister's letter. Either he did not find out what was going on—which he should have—or he


mentioned it to the Secretary of State and she did nothing. One of them is responsible, and for that reason one of them must go.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Tom Sackville): The London ambulance service operates within the national health service on the same basis as any other directly managed service. It is accountable to Ministers, and therefore to Parliament, through its relevant health authorities—in this case, South West Thames regional health authority.

Mrs. Llin Golding: May I intervene before the Minister gets into his stride? He may be wondering why my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) is not in his place on the Opposition Front Bench. No discourtesy is meant to the House, the Minister or my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing); my hon. Friend's wife has been taken ill, and at the last minute I agreed to sit on the Front Bench. Of course, the rules of the House do not permit me to speak.

Mr. Sackville: I thank the hon. Lady, and ask her to pass on our sympathy to the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney).
London has four regional health authorities, and four regions together fund the revenue and capital requirements of the LAS. The service is managed by South West Thames on behalf of the other three health regions.
All large organisations—the NHS is no exception—must operate through devolved responsibility, with clear lines of management accountability. Considerable management responsibilities are delegated to the appropriate levels of the NHS—regions, districts, family health service authorities and now trusts. Ministers are accountable for the performance of the NHS, but local management is responsible for ensuring that services are delivered. The front line of the NHS cannot be managed from the centre; it is the responsibility of the centre to see that services are well managed.
The medium-term aim for the LAS must be for it to achieve NHS trust status. Yesterday, a further 132 hospitals, community units and ambulance services achieved trust status. It is sensible to expect the LAS to achieve the same status as the great majority of NHS service providers. Until trust status is achieved, the LAS will continue to be directly managed by South West Thames regional health authority.
The recent report of the independent inquiry into the LAS identified management failures within the service, especially surrounding the implementation of a computer-aided dispatch system. The LAS has recognised that it must learn from the mistakes that have been highlighted and implement the report's recommendations if it is to achieve its main aim, which must be to improve its performance for Londoners.
As the inquiry report says, the best way, and the only way, in which the London ambulance service can regain public confidence is by making significant improvements in performance. Since the failure of the computer-aided dispatch system in October and the resignation of the then chief executive, John Wilby, performance has already improved. In the summer of 1992, a figure as low as 54 per cent. of crews were being dispatched in response to 999

calls within 14 minutes of the call being received. At the end of February, that figure had improved to 65 per cent. That is still below the patients charter standard, which is 95 per cent., and it is clearly unacceptable, but the achievements of the LAS since last summer, in particular since the failure of the computer-aided dispatch system in October, should be recognised.
The need for further improvements has been recognised by both the LAS and the South West Thames regional health authority. We should not underestimate the task facing the LAS in securing improvements in its service. When the planning of the computer-aided dispatch system began in 1990, a long and bitter industrial dispute had just concluded, leaving a legacy of very poor management-staff relations. Performance levels were poor. The LAS management had to work within that context to provide the improvements in performance which Londoners and Ministers expected to see.
Local managers are responsible for the day-to-day operation of their services. With respect to the computer-aided dispatch system, as implementation neared in 1992, the then LAS chief executive gave categorical assurances to the regional health authority that the chosen system would be introduced successfully and would contribute to improvements in performance. Given these assurances, the system was implemented. When it became clear that the computer-aided dispatch system had failed when it was reintroduced on 4 November, it was abandoned, and ambulance control reverted to a manual system. The chief executive of the LAS resigned and the deputy regional general manager was appointed in his place.
The system was introduced as a key element of the LAS plan to improve performance. The failure of the computer-aided dispatch system led directly to the independent inquiry, which was established to look into its failure and to make recommendations for changes within the LAS, in the light of its findings.
The inquiry report was published on 25 February. It identified several areas where the LAS must make practical changes to improve industrial relations, revise management accountability and reintroduce a computer-aided dispatch system. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health reported to the House at that time and requested the regional health authority to report within one month with proposals on strengthening management accountability for the LAS
On Wednesday of this week, my right hon. Friend announced the new arrangements for the accountability of the LAS which she has agreed with the regional health authority. The LAS had been managed by an arm's-length board, to which the chief executive was accountable. The board was chaired by a non-executive member of the regional health authority and had five non-executive members nominated by the four Thames regions. The LAS chief executive and other senior LAS managers sat on the board.
It is now clear that these arrangements left the members of the board and the regional health authority unclear about their respective roles and responsibilities, in spite of the fact that the individuals concerned worked extremely hard to make the arrangements work.

Mr. Spearing: The Minister said that the chief executive was responsible to the board. Was he referring to the LAS board or to the board of the South West Thames regional


hospital authority? The accountability difficulties that the Secretary of State has now admitted turn very much upon that matter. Can the Minister clarify the point?

Mr. Sackville: The chief executive reported to the board, which itself was appointed by the board of the regional health authority. I agree that there is ambiguity about the extent to which the board was responsible and the extent to which it was advisory. That is precisely why the new arrangements making the chief executive of the London ambulance service directly accountable to the regional health board represent the proper way forward. However, the hon. Gentleman is right to identify the ambiguity in this relationship.
I believe that the regional health authority exercised due diligence in its management role through the annual review of LAS performance and the individual performance of the chief executive and through the monitoring of financial performance. However, the regional health authority has acknowledged that the arm's-length arrangement meant that some of the problems identified in the inquiry report were not being acted upon adequately.
As I have said, the relationship of Ministers to operational services is based on the principle of delegating responsibility for those services to the appropriate levels of management. It is important in this relationship, that, within the objectives laid down by Ministers, operational managers should have the freedom to use their delegated authority and actually manage the service.
Within that framework of accountability, the public and Ministers expect to see services delivered to as high a standard as possible. I take a very serious view of the failures highlighted by the inquiry report. My right hon. Friend has made known her determination that the mistakes identified in the report must not be repeated. Yesterday, she agreed with the regional health authority new arrangements for the management of the LAS.
The region has acknowledged that the previous, arm's-length relationship is to be replaced in May by direct-line accountability, for LAS performance, of the LAS chief executive to the regional general manager. This accountability will include routine financial monitoring, performance monitoring, the monitoring of complaints and untoward incidents, annual corporate reviews, individual performance reviews and the observance of regional health authority standing orders and standing financial instructions.
The LAS chief executive will attend regional health authority meetings, and progress reports will be submitted to the authority. These reports will be considered in public at authority meetings. In recognition of the fact that there is a need for more detailed scrutiny, in addition to the full RHA meeting, a sub-committee comprising senior directors of the RHA will be established. This sub-committee will be able to draw on advice from a group of external specialists in, for example, information technology, finance and human resources.
The advisers will advise the LAS directly, and will also have access to the regional chairman should they think that an issue is not being dealt with adequately through normal line management agreement. The LAS sub-committee minutes will be received and discussed at full

regional health authority meetings. The regional health authority will be accountable to Ministers for the LAS, within the existing framework.
The virtue of the board was that it brought non-executive assistance to the LAS and gave delegated authority to the chief executive. The regional health authority does not want to remove authority from the LAS chief executive to manage the service. Interference should be kept to a minimum, and the balance of this continued delegation will be the objectives for performance agreed between the region and the LAS. These objectives will also be incorporated into the annual corporate contract between the LAS and the management executive of the national health service and will be monitored throughout the year.
The London ambulance service is not committed to producing an annual report concentrating on performance data and agreement against plan targets. The management of the London ambulance service, in conjunction with staff, are currently preparing an action plan, which will contain objectives for improving the performance of the service—improving management arrangements, reintroducing a computer-aided dispatch system, improving industrial relations and improving financial performance. More specific objectives will be agreed when the action plan has been finalised.
I am sure that hon. Members will welcome the increased openness of the LAS to public scrutiny. Regular copies of performance reports will be available to hon. Members, local authorities and interested public bodies Emphasis will be placed on clarifying the contractual relationship between the four regional health authorities and the LAS.

Mr. Spearing: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, because I know that there is little time. He has not mentioned finance. Surely, half the basis of this issue is the petrol supply to the engine. The management jargon that he is using does not inspire confidence in me. Will he respond to the request that the budget be increased to cater for overtime? How is the future funding of the complex machine that he has outlined going to work? Will it be determined by the Treasury, the Secretary of State, the South West Thames health authority or at a meeting of the new panel?

Mr. Sackville: It will be determined in exactly the same way as in the 41 other ambulance services in this country: through contractual negotiations between the purchasers—in this case, the four regional health authorities—and the ambulance service. In that connection, the hon. Gentleman should compare the level of finance per 1,000 of population for the London service with the other metropolitan services in the west midlands, Greater Manchester, West Yorkshire and so on. He will find that the financing of the LAS is very much in line with that of other ambulance services which are turning in performance figures of 90 per cent. and 95 per cent. against a current performance figure of 65 per cent. in London.
That is the nub of the argument. The resources are there, and we are trying to find out why there is a problem in London.

Mr. Spearing: rose—

Mr. Sackville: I should like to press on.
The new arrangements are a first step towards restoring public confidence in the LAS. We recognise that that is the goal towards which we must strive. As the inquiry report pointed out, that will be fully achieved only by improved LAS performance. I recognise that considerable progress has been made since October, but a great deal more needs to be done. The new objectives for the LAS will be delivered within a time scale agreed by Ministers.
My right hon. Friend has also told the regional chairman that she will be looking to her and her management team to ensure that the main recommendations of the inquiry report are swiftly implemented and that the LAS begins to move as quickly as it can towards providing the quality of service that Londoners have a right to expect. A report will be published in the autumn, which will detail progress in implementing the report's recommendations.
I remind the House that the inquiry report stated:
it is not possible to turn around LAS performance overnight … the public and its representatives must be prepared to allow the LAS breathing space to put its house in order.
We shall therefore guard against unrealistic pressures on the LAS, but we shall continue to keep its performance under careful scrutiny. It is vital that the LAS should make sustained progress towards improving its service to the public. I believe that the arrangements put in place by the region provide the right framework to enable that to happen.

Mr. Spearing: The Minister is now talking about a policy programme. Let us deal with the emergency ambulance service. Whatever the merits of joining or splitting the services, the emergency service is quite different from the patient transfer service. How can a single provider. established and working, bargain with four different customers, only part of whose areas are within the LAS area, and come to an agreement? Surely the service must reach the Orcon standard, say how much it costs and then apportion the money more or less equally among the population of the four authorities. Is there any other way of doing it? How can there be bargaining about such a contract?

Mr. Sackville: It is happening across the health service. Health authorities are demanding a certain level of service and reaching agreements with providers on the price. As I said, the financing of the LAS is be no means out of line with that of other services. It receives more money than several comparable metropolitan ambulances services, some of which have performance figures that are way ahead of patients charter standards of 95 per cent. There is a great gulf.
I should like to deal with more of what the hon. Gentleman said. He has given us a long political history of the last few years in terms of contacts between him and Ministers, Adjournment debates and other such matters, but he has not tackled the question of what the fundamental problem of the LAS is, and what differentiates it From West Yorkshire, Greater Manchester and other similar ambulance services in places with similar problems.
There is general agreement that there is a long-standing problem involving industrial relations in the LAS. I do not believe that there has been total co-operation between staff and management, and excellent performance cannot be achieved without that. We hope that the current arrangements will work towards such co-operation, but we

all need to come out of the trenches, and those of us who may have been tempted to support one line or the other must meet in the middle and decide how, together, we can achieve the sort of performance in the LAS that almost every other ambulance service in the country is achieving.
The hon. Gentleman knows that the chairman of the South West Thames regional health authority has invited him to meet the authority and to give it the benefit of his undoubted expertise and long interest in the matter. A letter written to him by Mr. Spry, the regional general manager, says:
Professor Hicks and I have only been involved in the LAS for a relatively brief time. You have a far more extensive experience of observing the problems of the LAS. We believe that we could benefit from learning from your experience.
So far the hon. Gentleman has not taken up that offer, and he replied to the original invitation with the words:
I thank you for your courtesy; it may be that you are not fully aware of the long period for which I have been involved in matters relating to the London ambulance service
He also gave the fact that
there may be other proceedings in Parliament
as a reason for not meeting representatives of the LAS. I suggest that that is not a good reason for not meeting them. It would be most helpful if he would sit down with the chairman and the chief executive of the regional health authority and share his expertise and his ideas about what he believes is wrong. We have not heard many solutions from him tonight.

Mr. Spearing: I am extremely glad to respond to that request. But, as I made clear, I thought it right that the debate should take place first—

Mr. Irvine Patnick (Lords Commissioner to the Treasury): No.

Mr. Spearing: Oh, yes. I hear a sedentary interruption from a well-known voice. The debate had to take place first because the people whom the Minister has mentioned, and for whom I have personal respect, are the Minister's appointees. They have to carry out a policy directed from Richmond house by the Secretary of State and the Minister, whose performance and conduct I have described—perhaps at length, but necessarily so. I shall be glad to meet those people after the debate, but it is right that the matter should be dealt with first in Parliament, where the real responsibility lies.
I conclude—I hope—by telling the Minister, if he has not already seen it, that I wrote a long piece of evidence to the inquiry, which is public, and an appendix on the need to set up machinery to determine the finance necessary to meet the Orcon standard. I should be pleased to meet the Minister, the Secretary of State or the chairman of the South West Thames regional health authority, initially to discuss my evidence and my constructive proposals within that evidence, which is now public; indeed, it has been public for some weeks.

Mr. Sackville: I cannot see why this debate in the middle of the night should have delayed the hon. Gentleman meeting the regional health authority in order to give it the benefit of his expertise on the subject. I hope that the meeting will take place soon. I extend an invitation to the hon. Gentleman to come to see me any time to give me all the information. Rather than chronicling his many Adjournment debates and his various contacts with Ministers over the years, he should give us some hard facts about what he sees as the solution to the problem. We all


agree that there are serious problems with the service which are not shared by almost any other ambulance service. We have got to get together to decide what they are. Political posturing will not help.

Mr. Spearing: We want funds.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. Hon. Members should remember that seated interventions are to be deplored.

Mr. Sackville: We must get together to decide what differentiates London from the rest of the country. If the hon. Gentleman has something to say, let him come and say it.

Orders of the Day — Retirement Age

Lady Olga Maitland: I propose to discuss an age-old problem—when are we officially old? In this age of equal opportunity and equal treatment for all, is it fair that a man can be deemed old at 65 and thus eligible for a state pension, but a woman is considered so old at 60 that she can skip a five-year wait and collect her pension then?
I have absolutely no intention of retiring at 60. That is barely 12 years from now. I must inform my constituency that I have every intention, barring illness, of carrying on working at least until 2017, by which time I will be a sprightly 73-year-old. Without giving away any secrets, I might point out that the House already has some splendid, lively women Members around their seventies. Like old soldiers, they show no signs of fading away, so hon. Members have been warned.
The reality is that we are mentally and physically delaying our aging process. We have better diets, healthier foods, more exercise and improved medicines, so much so that today there are 2,500 people alive who have celebrated their 100th birthday. A considerable number go on to celebrate their 105th birthday, and even their 110th. Most of those people are women.
Life expectancy for those born in 1841 was less than 40 years for a boy and 43 years for a girl; indeed, many children died in infancy. By 1941, life expectancy was 70 years for a boy and 75 years for a girl. I am happy to report that 50 years later there has been a dramatic increase. A son born in 1991 can expect to live to 76 and a daughter born in the same year will, on average, live to about 81 years of age. In other words, people born today can on average expect to live about six years longer than those born 50 years ago. That justifies the proposition that women form what I call the first estate. We are tougher, more resilient and more active. I should make another plug: we are harder-working.
Is it right, therefore, that women should be pensioned off at 60? The timing for paying retirement pensions has varied over the century. When pensions were introduced in 1908, they started for both men and women at over 70. In 1925 the age went down to 65. However, the pension age for women was lowered to 60 by the Old Age and Widows' Pensions Act 1940. The new inequality was a response to a campaign in the 1930s by unmarried women, many of whom had cared for dependent relatives for most of their lives. It also recognised the fact that, on average, married women were several years younger than their husbands. It must also be admitted that the Government hoped that lowering the age would be a sweetener to encourage more women to work in war factories. That was blatant sex discrimination, but the level has rested there for 50 years without change.
Today, the average woman is mortified to think of herself as old at 60, yet the state does. The time has come to think the unthinkable: raise our retirement age to that of men—65. It would be fairer and would not be breaking new ground, only restoring a former status quo.
More than that, the time has come to recognise that, with rising numbers and their survivability, women are putting an enormous strain on the rapidly diminishing working population which must sustain them. I congratulate the Leader of the House on having the


courage, when he was Secretary of State for Social Security, to raise the issue in his document, "Options for Equality in State Pension Age." He broke new ground by saying that the question today is not whether we should equalise the retirement age at 65 but how and when. The case is powerful.
The number of people over state pension age will increase significantly from 10·3 million in 1990 to a projected 13·3 million in 2050, peaking at 14·4 million in 2034. The peak in the number of pensions is caused by the aging of those born during the 1960s baby boom, which will lead to a corresponding increase in the number of people who will reach state pension age in the third and fourth decades of the next century. At the same time, the population of working-age people—the so-called support ratio—is expected to fall. All that will put added pressure on the social security budget, which is already the largest single item in public spending.
In short, can we possibly expect and demand that a much smaller work force should bear such a burden? Is it realistic to expect every pensioner aged 60 in 2010 to be supported by only 2·6 workers, whereas women, who are a much fitter generation now, would be supported by a wider and fairer spread of four workers if they waited until 65? As I said, the peak will be reached about 2030—I will be 86 and still going strong—and three people will be needed to support each pensioner, even at 65.
Let us turn to the European dimension. Our problems are not unique in squaring up to the matter. Others also have to adjust their state pensions. Many European Community countries have already moved towards equalisation. Germany plans to have a common pension age of 65 by 2012, when every pensioner will be supported by barely two workers. Italy will equalise at 65 by 2016. By that time, 2·4 workers will be needed to support retired people. Having gone against the trend and opted for retirement at 60, France has recently reopened the question.
We are all faced with the combined effects of low birth rates and increasing life expectancy which serve to slow the population growth rate and increase considerably the proportion of elderly people. In Britain, the proportion of people over the age of 65 is expected to rise from 14·9 per cent. in 1980 to 20·4 per cent. in 2040. In comparison, the proportion in France, which is starting from a lower base of only 14 per cent., is expected to rise to 22·7 per cent. in 2040. The proportion of people aged 65 or more in Japan will more than double in the next 40 years.
Some European countries have already seized the nettle. In Norway, the pension age of 67 applies to both sexes. Other Scandinavian countries and Cyprus have an equal state pension age of 65. Recognising similar trends, the United States has introduced a reform package to be implemented in stages between 1983 and 2027. Over the period 2003 to 2009, the pension age will increase to 66, and from 2021 to 2027, it will increase to 67.
There is more than one way of tackling the problem. We could use the much-favoured "flexible decade" system. But I do not believe that that is realistic. It sounds attractive. Everyone would be satisfied, so they think. People would choose their retirement age over a decade—say between 60 and 70 or 55 and 65. The attraction is that those who are fit and wish to remain happily at work until they are 70 or so would earn an additional pension when they retired. Those who wished to retire at the earliest opportunity would be able to do so, but clearly on

less income. On that score, the system could create problems. I appreciate that Sweden operates flexible decade retirement, but Sweden has a different culture and a different social security system. It does not bear direct comparison with Britain.
Alternatively, we could reduce the male pension age to 60, in line with women. Or we could split the difference and opt for 63. Or we could raise the pension age for women to 65. It has to be said that 60 is no longer the most realistic option. It would cost the Exchequer at least £3·5 billion a year, at current prices. It would fly in the face of international trends, which are mainly upwards.
The choice facing us and the decision-makers is simple: either we give extra money to men by reducing the male pension age from 65, or we make savings from women by increasing the female pension age from 60. Equalisation at 63 brings neither joy nor tears. There is no real gain either way. The economic effects are pretty neutral and little would be achieved.
However, a common pension age of 65 would bring savings of at least £3·5 billion a year. That would be enough to cut 3p in the pound off income tax. That must be a mouthwatering prospect for our Treasury Ministers. My guess is that the common pension age of 65 would be the most attractive proposition. Not only will the pension age be fairer, but pensions will no longer be a drain on the economy. More than that, the common pension age could bring real dividends, ensuring that the released money could be diverted and targeted to those most in need, for example, the very carers who look after the frail and elderly. None of the other options remotely offers this remedy and help.
Such a programme, on a considerable scale, involving women born in the 1950s will take adjustment. It will take at least 15 years to phase in. The first women likely to be affected by the full impact of the change would have been born in 1954 and will reach the new pension age of 65 in 2019. The full impact of the change would hit women now under 40. It is not a programme to be launched in haste. It will have a fundamental effect on society. Many women will be delighted to be able to continue working on the same basis as men.
We spend all our lives seeking equal treatment and status. There is no reason why retirement should be any different. However, we should not forget to take into account the women who have spent years in low-paid work, from which they may not qualify for a retirement pension and who do not have an occupational pension. Perhaps they have heavy home caring responsibilities. Such women could be forced to seek income support before they reached the official retirement age. I know, from the feedback that I have had, that they would regard this as demeaning.
We should examine carefully how vulnerable groups would be affected. We should be aware of the women who could be disadvantaged. They should be protected and compensated where appropriate. Of course, the other side of the coin is that, with the decline in the working population, there will be more demand for senior citizens to work and be recognised for all their skills and experience. At long last, the "Oldies", as signified by the satirist Richard Ingrams, will have the last word. The able-bodied are vibrant, alive and extremely well. It would be a great pity if we did not take advantage of that talent.
Agism, as far as I am concerned, has spun out of control. The great god youth will now be focusing on its seniors and appreciating them for their own worth.
I very much hope that more thinking will develop along these lines. The pensions field is a daunting area of social policy, the numbers involved are very high and the financial calculations are highly complex with so many pensions to be juggled around. This debate has been going on now since 1991. For two years, we have been airing these matters. We should now initiate, I believe, a comprehensive public information campaign and condition ourselves to these fundamental changes.
I congratulate the Social Security Advisory Committee, the independent body set up by the Government, on drawing on 4,000 comments and contributions from individuals, companies and organisations. Of these, there were 22 major ones, and it is interesting to look at the breakdown: 13 of them recommended pensions for all at 65, only one wanted retirement at 63, and just five sought a full basic pension at 60. I note, too, that the Labour party chose not to make any contribution or submissions at all to the DSS, although I understand that it is not averse to re-examining the issue.
I believe that the time has come to take the brave step and bring women's pensions up to date. The urgency is clear to all of us and it is my sincere hope that the Minister will give us some guidance on Government thinking.

Mrs. Llin Golding: I congratulate the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) on obtaining this very important debate. I listened with interest to her views and I have to declare an interest: I am a little older than she is. However, most of the women in my family live well into their 90s, so I have a long way to go yet.
I hope that the hon. Lady will forgive me for not commenting in detail on her interesting, if somewhat single-track, argument, enabling her to arrive at her conclusion tonight. She may be aware that the Labour party is consulting widely on this complex subject of the equalisation of pension age. There is much to discuss, as I am sure that the Minister will be telling us when she responds to the debate.
The Government intend, I believe, to bring forward a proposal some time later this year and the Opposition look forward to debating the issue. I am sure that the hon. Lady will have much to contribute. She has obviously done a great deal of research on the subject and I look forward to hearing her views. As I have said, I hope that she will forgive me if I do not take this opportunity to reply to her in detail tonight; I intend to keep my powder dry, but I look forward to debating the matter with her at a later date.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Miss Ann Widdecombe): I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) on obtaining this debate. With not only Britain but the rest of Europe now facing major demographic challenges, my hon. Friend is quite right to

invite the House to consider future patterns of retirement and their effect on generations of both workers and pensioners to come.
The Government, as my hon. Friend has said, in the person of my right hon. Friend the present Leader of the House, then Secretary of State for Social Security, announced in June 1991 that we would equalise state pension age, and our manifesto at the last election reaffirmed that commitment. But we have not yet taken a decision on how we intend to achieve equalisation. We are, as my hon. Friend pointed out, considering four basic options, these being retirement age at 60, 63 or 65, or a flexible period, often referred to as a flexible decade. As I said, we have not taken a decision among those options, and it would be wholly improper for me to speculate on future legislation.
The 4,000-plus responses to the consultation document that we issued in December 1991 and the large volume of correspondence received by hon. Members demonstrate the public interest in the matter, and my hon. Friend's speech is a most helpful contribution to this wide debate.
My hon. Friend has referred to population changes forecast in Britain over the next few decades. She is right to predict a large increase in the number of elderly people. Since it has become fashionable to declare our interests tonight, it would appear that I have rather longer to wait for retirement age than my hon. Friend or the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding).
As the national insurance fund works on a pay-as-you-go basis, whereby today's workers pay today's pensions, the support ratio is fundamental to our thinking about pensions and retirement. It is therefore worth taking a few minutes to examine that ratio.
Throughout the industrialised world, people are living longer, healthier lives. As a result, an increasingly large proportion of the population are over the existing state pension ages. Our consultation document noted that, in 1990, there were on average 3·5 people of working age for every retirement pensioner in the United Kingdom.
Assuming that no change were to be made in state pension age arrangements, that ratio would drop to 2·5 to one by the year 2030. As my hon. Friend pointed out, the fewer workers there are supporting each pensioner, the more each will have to pay to maintain the same level of pension.
Since the publication of the consultation document, the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys has issued fresh population projections for the next century. They show an even more marked increase in the proportion of people over state pension age.
We had previously estimated that there would be 11·3 million pensioners by the year 2010; we now calculate that there will be 11·7 million. We had previously estimated that there would be 14 million people over state pension age by the year 2030; we now calculate that there will be 15·5 million. Again assuming pension age status quo, the support ration would drop to 2·2 people of working age per pensioner by 2030.
As my hon. Friend pointed out, those changes are not merely a British phenomenon. In the EC, 19·2 per cent. of the population, or 61·9 million people, are over 60. By 2010, that will rise to 23 per cent. Although we should not take it as an indication of what Britain will do eventually, because we have not yet taken a decision, we should be aware of how Europe and the industrialised world are responding to that phenomenon. My hon. Friend


provided some Information, and I can add that Denmark and Norway already have a state pension age of 67, the United States is moving towards 67, Germany is moving up to 65, Japan and Italy are increasingly their state pension age, and Austria has equalised state pension ages at 65.
The problem is recognised by the European Commission. In a recent report on Communitywide retirement age policy, it noted:
radical changes in the demographic situation
will have a major impact on
the balance between resources and expenditure in social security sytems".
Any country must take into account for the future the necessity and the moral imperative of providing for a sound pension system that guarantees security in retirement. It must also take into account the equally compelling necessity and moral and practical imperative to achieve that without placing an unacceptable burden on the workers of that time.
When we come to resolve that question, we will face the awesome responsibility of handing to future generations a solution to the question of state pension age that must stand the test of decades to come. Any costs or savings will be largely borne or enjoyed by future Governments, not by this Government. The policies that we hand to those of the future must be sound and safe. Costs or savings of between £3 billion and £4 billion are not prospects that we can treat lightly. Our discussion document sets out our calculations in respect of all our options, between which we have yet to choose.
The debate has placed much emphasis on the increasing numbers of the elderly. However, the wider debate develops, I would make one strong appeal: we should not regard our elderly as a burden, but a resource. We must surely all be grateful that we are living longer, healthier, more active lives. I for one will rejoice if the number of pensioners enjoying greater longevity and medical advances grows even more than we already predict.
The one thing that I cannot undertake to equalise is the imbalance of longevity between men and women, but both

sexes now enjoy increased life expectancy, which we welcome. The use of those years over the age of 60, whether in remunerative or voluntary work or actively enjoyed retirement, is the subject of increasing study and interest. It is in that positive vein of not always associating advanced years with absence of contribution to the common good, while at the same time recognising every citizen's right to security and rest at the end of his or her working life, that I have addressed the issues raised by the debate.
It is also important to consider the necessity of not always confusing state pension age with an individual's retirement age. The state pension age is the age at which someone becomes entitled to the state retirement pension, but retirement age is the age at which a worker chooses to retire. For many workers that may be a different age from the pension age. Retirement age depends on a number of factors relating to the employment situation and individual choice. It is not something that can be imposed by the Government and it is not something that the Government, in sorting out state pension age, will seek to impose on individuals. We believe, however, that those who wish to remain in the labour market beyond state pension age should be encouraged and enabled to do so.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam referred to the option of a flexible retirement. We are studying that along with the other options, and we have not yet reached a final conclusion on it. My hon. Friend is right to say that, faced with a choice of retirement ages, many might choose to retire early on reduced state pension, which would, of course, then involve a future Government in heavier income-related benefit expenditure. That option, like others, has attractions as well as drawbacks. I assure the House that, when we come to choose among the four options, which we are studying closely, we will bear in mind the points made in tonight's debate and in the wider debate.
My only regret tonight—I am making a carping point—is that we have not had much of a contribution generally from the Opposition.

Orders of the Day — Housing

Mr. Nick Raynsford: I am pleased to have this opportunity to raise the important subject of affordability in housing-albeit not at the hour that I, or I suspect the other participants in the debate, would have chosen.
I start by declaring an interest as the director of a housing consultancy which has advised a number of organisations on matters germane to the debate. It is an important subject, which has become a matter of grave concern in recent years. There have been problems of affordability in all tenures. In the home ownership market, there has been a crisis of debt and repossessions. The number of home owners facing the prospect of losing their home through repossession rose from 16,000 in 1989 to 75,000 in 1991 and 68,000 last year.
At the beginning of last year, the Prime Minister made the rash claim on, of all places, the radio programme "Desert Island Discs": "We have stopped repossessions." Some 68,000 households bear witness to the Government's failure to honour that pre-election promise. Although the rise in repossessions has been stemmed, that cannot be said of the problem of mortgage debt. At the last count, 350,000 households were more than six months in arrears with their mortgage, and 147,000 of them were more than 12 months in arrears.
Many of those households will face the misery of repossession and the loss of their home—sadly, some of them already do so. They are the victims of the failed economic policies of the 1980s, which were claimed as an economic miracle on the basis of a credit binge that came to a sickening halt in 1988, leaving all too many people with debts that proved to be millstones round their necks.
Many home owners were left with properties that were worth less than the mortgage outstanding on them—a problem that has become known in the trade language as negative equity. On the latest estimates, that problem affects at least 1·5 million householders, who are locked into the unwelcome trap where they find it virtually impossible to move because the sum that they would receive from selling their house would be substantially less than the amount that they have outstanding on their mortgage for it.
Affordability problems are not confined to the owner-occupied sector. They are seen just as starkly in all parts of the rented sector. Council tenants have faced continuing steep rent increases as a direct consequence of Government policy, specifically the new subsidy framework introduced by the Local Government and Housing Act 1989. Under that framework, the Government have been able to determine, to all intents and purposes, the level of rent that each local authority has to set.
One of the curious features of the subsidy framework is that the Government set notional rents for each local authority in the country—an extraordinary example of centralisation, where the gentlemen in Whitehall claim to have a better knowledge of what the rent levels should be in any area of the country than do those people who have been democratically elected from the local communities. Those in Whitehall use formulae that are so confusing and arcane that they produce complete nonsense. They claim that the rent levels will reflect market values, but produce

results that lead to higher rents in areas where market values are patently substantially lower than in other regions.
In my local authority district of Greenwich, rents have had to rise this year by £4, to an average of £41·65 per tenant per week—an increase of more than 10 per cent, which is more than three times the inflation rate. Most scandalous of all is the fact that the forced rent increases have both enabled, and provided the vehicle for, the Government to offload on to council tenants an ever-increasing proportion of the cost of housing benefit. In the coming year, £790 million of housing benefit costs are being forced on to the rents of council tenants. That will result in an average increase in rent of £3·85 a week for every council tenant in the country to meet the cost of housing benefit for other tenants.
Not only is that monstrously unfair, but in no other tenure is a similar provision applicable. There would be a national outcry if it were suggested that similar provisions should apply in other tenures. Imagine the alarm if it were suggested that every home owner in Britain should pay a surcharge on his mortgage equivalent to £200 a year—that is the exactly equivalent figure—towards the cost of income support payments to other home owners in financial difficulties. That is the framework that the Government have introduced in respect of council tenants, forcing some to pay higher rent than they would otherwise need to pay so as to meet part of the cost of benefits to other tenants.
That is not only grossly unfair, but involves a scandalous breach of faith. When housing benefit was first introduced, the Government repeatedly pledged that the full cost would be borne by central Government and not offloaded on to local authorities. The Prime Minister, then a mere Back Bencher, speaking in a debate on what was then the Social Security and Housing Benefits Bill, asked specifically for an assurance on the point:
If 2·3 million people on supplementary benefit are likely to be transferred to a local authority rebate scheme, are the Government proposing to accept 100 per cent. liability for the costs of that scheme"?
He was given an assurance by the then Minister, Mr. Hugh Rossi, in the same debate:
The Government have undertaken to local authorities to reimburse to them 100 per cent. of any additional costs that they incur under housing benefit … When I talk of the costs, I am talking of the 100 per cent. rebate on rents and rates that will be granted".—[Official Report, 23 November 1981; Vol. 13, c. 674–707.]
We have a clear and categorical assurance, given in response to questions from many people, including the present Prime Minister, that central Government would reimburse the cost of housing benefit 100 per cent. Now, we see that the reality is different.
Some 20 per cent. of the total cost of the housing benefit paid to council tenants is not being met by central Government but is being charged to the rent accounts of tenants—a flagrant breach of a clear pledge, given by the Government of the time. It is rather a sad comment that the Prime Minister who presides over that was party to the original pledge that it would not happen.
If council tenants are facing a raw deal because of the Government's actions, so, too, are tenants of private landlords. Deregulation of the private rented market has opened the door to massive increases in rents, when properties are offered on the market not as regulated tenancies but as assured or assured shorthold tenancies.
Even those properties subject to rent regulation are seeing steep increases when rents come to be re-registered. On average, they are re-registered at a level 25 per cent. higher than previously.
Recently, I was approached by tenants in Greenwich, whose rent had been increased by 58 per cent. To add insult to injury, the increase was almost double the amount that the landlord had requested. The rent officer and rent assessment committee mechanism has produced an extraordinary increase in rents, even above the levels sought by the landlord. There can be no justification for rents being pushed up in that way. Those increases are far in excess of the rate of inflation, and bear no relationship to what is happening in the property market.
The Government have often enjoyed making the case that rents should enjoy a closer relationship to market values—they certainly argue that forcibly in relation to their new regime on council rents. However, in the past two years, market values have been declining. Indeed, there has been a significant reduction in house prices.
If the relationship to market values were to be sustained, we should now be seeing reductions in the rents that are fixed by rent officers and rent assessment committees, instead of which we see a continuing, inexorable upward trend, which is increasing at a faster rate than previously. In 1988, average registered rents increased by 18 per cent. whereas the increases in 1989, 1990 and 1991 were 19 per cent., 22 per cent. and 25 per cent. During a period when the housing market was declining and capital values were decreasing, rent increases accelerated in the sector that is subject to regulation.
The problems are serious for council and private sector tenants, but it is housing association tenants who feel most keenly the issues that surround affordability. It is worth putting the figures in context. When the Housing Act 1988 introduced a new financial framework for housing associations, fears were widely expressed that it would lead to steep rises in association rents. Responding to the expressions of anxiety, Ministers were emphatic that housing association lettings would be "affordable". They added that tenants would be protected by a tenants' guarantee, which among other requirements would insist that housing associations set their rents so that they would be in reach of those in low-paid employment. As with so many other pledges offered by the Government, that promise was riot worth the paper on which the tenants' guarantee was written.
In 1988, the National Federation of Housing Associations set up a regular monitoring system to record rents being set by associations and the incomes of tenants moving into new lettings. The system has been in operation since the second quarter of 1988. The most recent figures, for the third quarter of 1992, show that, in the intervening four years rents for all housing association lettings increased by a staggering 112 per cent. Housing association rents have more than doubled in just over four years. Yet over the same period, the average income of tenants rose by only 25 per cent., rather below the increases in the retail price index and in average earnings. That reflects the well-known fact that housing association tenants are among the least well-off in Britain.
As a consequence of rent levels increasing by more than four times the average income levels of tenants, the affordability ratio has increase. That means that housing association tenants are having to allocate an ever larger proportion of their income to meet their rent. The figures

show that about 26 per cent. of their income is taken by rent. That does not take into account other related costs that are incurred through occupation of their homes, such as council tax, water rates and heating costs. In London, where costs are higher, the National Federation of Housing Associations' CORE—continuous recording—monitoring system records that, on average, tenants are putting about 29 per cent. of their income into meeting their rent. The figures are rising all the time.
The figures reflect a period when housing association grant rates, on average, were about 75 per cent. of the capital costs of new schemes, but the rates are changing. Last year, the rates were reduced to 72 per cent., and in the coming year they will decrease to 67 per cent. The Government justify the reductions on the ground that building costs have been falling during the recession, so the procurement cost of new housing has been decreasing. It has been possible to get homes more cheaply than previously, and the Government argue that grant rates can be reduced accordingly.
There is some truth in that, and it would not concern me, if the Government were ready to increase grant rates when building costs rise—as they inevitably will. Most people familiar with that sector except, once recovery begins, a significant rise in building costs as firms that have cut their margins to the bone to keep alive during the recession attempt to restore profit margins to protect their financial position. As they do so, the procurement costs to housing associations will inevitably rise.
While Ministers have been quick to use reduced procurement costs as an explanation, excuse or justification for reducing grant rates, they have been coy about giving the corollary assurance that, in the event of procurement costs increasing, grant rates will rise again to reflect that situation. When the Minister replies, it will be interesting to see whether he can give an assurance that when procurement costs rise again, the Government will accept the need to increase grant rates, to ensure no deterioration in the affordability of homes.
We have not received such an assurance so far. I hope that the Minister will cast some light on that aspect, but if not, we will think the worst—that the Government are only too happy to find reasons and excuses for cutting grant rates but far less willing to protect the interests of tenants and housing associations in different circumstances.
In the past few months, we have seen different indications of the Government's intentions. The autumn statement signalled the Government's objective of reducing grant rates to 60 per cent. in 1994–95 and to 55 per cent. in 1995–96. The National Federation of Housing Associations analysed the implications, and reached the stark conclusion that the consequence would be an increase in average rents to a level 75 per cent. higher in 1996 than those measured in the CORE monitoring system in 1992.
In particular, working households becoming association tenants would face an average rent of £84·37 in 1996, compared with £48·11in 1992. On average, that group would spend 39·3 per cent. of income in rent in 1996, compared with 28·9 per cent. in 1992, and the percentage of new working tenants spending more than one third of their income in rent would rise from 27 per cent. in 1992 to 76 per cent. in 1996.
Those are staggering and depressing figures. It is clear that, with rents being pushed up to those levels, some 89


per cent. of housing association tenants moving to new lettings are expected to be people dependent on housing benefit to meet all or part of their rent.
The consequences are clear. Only those people likely to be receiving housing benefit, or who are relatively well off and are able to afford large rents without assistance, would be able to consider housing association lettings. That will inevitably exclude significant numbers of people on modest incomes—in middle to low—paid work—who cannot afford the extraordinarily high cost of renting from housing associations under those terms, and who will not qualify for housing benefit towards the cost. People in need on modest incomes and in low-paid work—the very people that the tenants guarantee said should have access to housing association lettings—will be squeezed out. That is a complete and fragrant breach of the supposed tenants guarantee.
Those who cannot afford to enter into housing association lettings because they qualify for housing benefit will be caught in a wretched poverty trap—unable to improve their income and living standards because they will lose almost every penny from every extra pound they earn through the withdrawal of their means-tested benefits on top of their tax and national insurance liabilities.
A couple with a low income will lose 30p of every extra pound that they receive in tax and national insurance—assuming, that is, that they are subject only to the 20 per cent. tax band. That is a generous assumption, because the band is very narrow. National insurance will rise to 10 per cent. under the arrangements announced in the Budget. That will leave the couple with 70p, 65 per cent. of which will be removed by the housing benefit taper and a further 20 per cent. by the council tax taper. So 85 per cent. of that 70p will be taken away, leaving the couple with precisely 10·5p.
If that couple are unwise enough to have children and hence to receive family credit, a further 70 per cent. of the residual 10·5p will be taken, leaving them just 3p from every extra pound they earn. That is a monstrous poverty trap. When the Government came to office, they complained that the richest people in Britain were subject to a penal and confiscatory tax rate of 83p in the pound; now they have created a far more penal and confiscatory framework for the lowest-paid people in employment, who depend on benefits.
That cannot be right. No one in his right mind can justify creating an arrangement that catches people in such acute poverty traps, giving them no incentive to earn more: such people will lose virtually every penny they earn, through the withdrawal of means-tested benefits and tax and national insurance contributions. They are condemned to a life of benefit dependency, with no incentives.
I remind the Minister that, when Labour was last in power, although income tax was higher—the standard rate was 33 per cent. rather than 25 per cent.; the lower rate also applied, but I am not taking that into account—a person in low-paid work would still have kept 37p out of every extra pound that he earned, because the reduction in benefit was so much less steep than it is now.
That is a very interesting difference. Someone in low-paid work, receiving help with housing costs through housing benefit—or rent rebate, as it was then—and rate rebate, but also paying tax and national insurance, would

have been subject to an income loss of 63p in the pound. Currently, the equivalent figure is 89·5p in the pound. The Government should be ashamed of having plunged so many low-paid people into such a poverty trap.
This unhappy situation cries out for a new approach, and I have a series of specific proposals for action to tackle the problems. First—remembering the problems of mortgage arrears and repossessions—I believe that we need a mortgage benefit scheme to help home owners in low-paid work who are struggling to cope. For those who are unemployed, income support may well be available; if so, it will meet their mortgage interest payments up to a reasonable limit. But there are no arrangements to help those who are in work, even if—as is so often the case—the mortgage arrears are attributable to a reduction in earnings, perhaps when a member of the family ceased to work or went on to short-time work, or when his hours or earnings were reduced.
People who are in employment, but whose earnings are reduced, will have serious difficulty in making their mortgage repayments. It is precisely those people who receive no assistance under the current arrangements. The mortgage benefit scheme, which has been researched very thoroughly for the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, offers an intelligent way forward, concentrating help on those most in need. The savings that the Chancellor will make by restricting mortgage interest tax relief to 20 per cent.—that move, announced in the Budget, is very welcome—should be diverted to help the poorest home owners through a mortgage benefit scheme.
Council tenants must also be liberated from the monstrously unfair housing benefit clawback. This requires a simple adjustment to the subsidy rules to exclude housing benefit from the formula, thereby putting council tenants on exactly the same footing as everyone else. Benefits to council tenants, private tenants and housing association tenants and income support for home owners should be the responsibility of society as a whole, paid for out of national taxation, not selectively offloaded on to individual sectional groups within the community. It is wrong that that should be done. That practice should be changed as soon as possible.
Local authorities should be allowed once again to determine rents locally, in the light of local circumstances, rather than be forced by Government to push rents upwards, on the basis of a mechanistic Whitehall formula which, as is so often the case, bears no relationship to local reality. With private tenants, Ministers should now act on the consultation exercise that they undertook some months ago. The evidence—which I am aware of from talking to people, not just in my own constituency but in many other parts of the country—is absolutely clear: that rent levels for private tenants have been rising by unacceptably disproportionate levels, far ahead of the rate of inflation, and that they bear no relation at all to what is happening to capital values.
Action is needed urgently to halt, if not reverse, the unjustified rent increases being imposed on private tenants. New guidance should be issued to rent officers and rent assessment committees. The latter are often the cause of the problem. Rent officers tell me that they often have no option but to increase rents far more than they would like because, if rents are referred to a rent assessment committee, they will simply be put up on appeal. Rent assessment committees have the unenviable reputation of being seen as the party of the landlord rather than as a


group of people trying to be impartial and scrupulous and trying to find an appropriate and fair balance between the interests of the two parties.
New guidance is needed to discourage these unjustified rent increases, and also proper safeguards, including appeal procedures that work for those tenants who are not in the regulated sector—tenants who have assured tenancies or assured shorthold tenancies—and who usually have no effective redress whatsoever against extortionate rents imposed and charged by their landlords. A proper mechanism for appealing against such extortionate rents and unreasonable increases is long overdue.
I believe that the Government must act immediately to reverse the very damaging threat of further reductions in grant rates to housing associations. The current figure of 67 per cent. grant rates should be taken as the absolutely minimum base line, and should be increased if either construction costs or affordability problems make that necessary. The threatened reduction of grant rates to 60 per cent. and then 55 per cent. must be repudiated as yet another of our failed Chancellor's foolish foibles. He may be unable to tell his threes from his fives, but it is time that someone else in the Government—in this case, I suggest, a Department of the Environment Minister—taught the Chancellor a few basic lessons.
At the same time, the Department of the Environment must come clean about affordability. For years, Ministers have talked about affordability but have never come up with any definition. We notice from other issues that Department of the Environment Ministers are all too keen to prescribe performance indicators to others. It is high time that they set a performance indicator in relation to affordability. Tenants of housing associations throughout the country deserve to know what is an affordable rent. They deserve to have the opportunity to challenge rent increases that are unreasonable and beyond the means of people in low-paid employment.
To do that. it is necessary to have a clear indication and a clear definition of affordability. The Government should come clean about it. In the absence of any clear criteria and a clear definition, it is possible for people to say one thing to one group of people and something else to another group, and to preside over a framework in which rents are clearly escalating and going through the roof—far beyond the means and reach of people in low-paid employment, without their having any come-back. We need some honesty from Ministers, and we need some clear definitions of affordability.
I am conscious of the fact that this debate is taking place at the end of a very long night. However, we have at least had an opportunity to air what I believe to be one of the most vital housing issues of today. I hope that, in his reply, the Minister will be able to offer some positive responses, and not just trot out the old excuses for the failure of current policies—excuses that we have heard so often. I hope he will accept that, even at this hour of the morning, lame excuses will not be good enough. We want a new approach that will bring hope to people who are desperate because of affordability problems.

Mr. John Battle: It is appropriate that this debate on affordability follows one on retirement and pensions. It is also appropriate that it should be taking

place tonight, of all nights. I believe that when we look back we shall see 1 April as a key date with regard to housing and the homelessness crisis. I make that point because it is the date of the introduction of community care. That may not seem immediately relevant to affordability, but I suggest that it is indirectly relevant. From 1 April, people already in private residential care will not have the full cost of their care met; unlike those who enter homes after 1 April. In this of all years—it is the European year for solidarity between the generations—elderly people will find that, as a result of that policy, they cannot afford places in residential homes. If their families are unable to match the costs, they will have to leave and look for accommodation elsewhere, turning back to local authorities. Why? Because the housing benefit system will not cover the full cost.
Similarly, in the case of community care, the discharge of people from hospitals will put pressure on housing. The Government take a good policy and, somehow, manage to turn it inside out and corrupt it. They have a knack almost of corrupting the language. The very words "community care" may well turn out to mean the opposite. It may well be that there is no care and that the community is not there for the provision of support. The document on community care contained the helpful words:
Housing is the key to independent living.
That is fine, provided that there is sufficient housing. But, without a door, what use is a key?
In the context of this debate, the primary concern of society must be the absolute shortage of housing to rent. The Audit Commission, the Institute of Housing and the Housing Corporation all come up with a figure of 100,000 when considering the number of units of accommodation that need to be provided each year. The Government's plans for this year may produce, at best, 53,000 new homes. There is a desperate shortage of housing to rent.
For another reason, tonight is an appropriate occasion for a debate on the affordability of housing. On 31 March the Government closed the severe weather shelters. I am glad that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment is present, as he went on record in The Times, and elsewhere, in an attempt to assure us that the 400 people in the nine shelters provided as emergency accommodation throughout the winter would have places provided for them or would find spaces in the voluntary sector. On the very last day—31 March—we checked and found that 133 people in some of those nine shelters had to leave, without anywhere else to go. As we debate in this Chamber, those people are spending their night on the streets of London. That is a disgrace.
Of course, we accept that it is a good policy to have severe weather shelters, but why on earth could not the Government have made provision to ensure that people being turned out had somewhere else to go? They knew who the people were. What we have is a good policy corrupted.
The Government's housing policies are now effectively pricing people out of renting. They are making it impossible for many people to rent in the private sector, the local authority sector and the housing association sector. I remind the Minister that the housing association sector is only 3 per cent. of the stock, the private rented sector only 7 per cent. and the local authority sector 21 per cent. All in all, about a third of the population live in rented housing and they have a right to know whether their homes will be affordable in the years to come.
I suggest that there needs to be some joined-up thinking between the Department of the Environment and the Department of Social Security. The affordability crisis in housing is also a housing benefit crisis. The Government are pursuing a low-wage policy and there is a fundamental contradiction between low wages and high rents. The Minister may reply that high rents will be met by high housing benefit.
The problem is that, for some people, wages are dropping. The Government claim that the average wage is rising and that is true, but they do not seem to realise that the average rises because the highest wages go up while, at the same time, people at the bottom of the scale see their incomes declining. That is where people hit the poverty trap.
The poverty trap is not for those on benefit but for those who are literally trapped between benefit and work income. They are caught coming off benefit. The Government must tackle the issue of housing benefit and the Minister should not glibly assume that social security will pay the bill. He will learn the hard way. People have to take up work—and so they should—but when they are offered a low-paid, part-time or temporary job, they will find that the income from that job will float them out of housing benefit through the tapers. They will be caught in the poverty trap because they will have to decide whether they can afford to take the job. If they cannot afford to take the job because it would mean that they were unable to pay the rent, they will face the worst double jeopardy. They will face the choice of losing their home because they cannot pay the rent or not taking a job. In other words, a work disincentive is being built into the Government's high-rent, low-wage policy.
The Government also need to make it clear whether the Treasury is giving carte blanche to the housing benefit system. From some of the statements made by the Secretary of State for Social Security, I am not sure whether the benefit tapers will be changed in the next Budget in November. If the tapers are changed and the situation becomes harsher, people will receive less from the benefit system to support their rents and will be forced to pay a higher proportion of their incomes in housing costs.
My hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) referred to the iniquitous system of local authorities effectively subsidising the income support system. When the Government ring-fenced the housing revenue accounts, that is how they insisted that the system worked. Local authority tenants not on housing benefit make up the cost of local authority tenants on housing benefit. Of course, the Government know that that is happening. That is why they have recently changed the rules for large-scale voluntary transfer. They know that the rent accounts of local councils are receiving a subsidy from tenants not on benefit to cover the deficits which the Government should be making up through housing benefit and income support.
Why should some council tenants be subsidising the housing benefit of others, who ought to get proper support through the social security system? In other words, other renters are being forced to subsidise the income support system rather than the housing system. That is iniquitous and unjust. The Government recognised that fact in connection with large-scale voluntary transfer, which is

why they changed the rules for that and introduced the levy. They should scrap the system now and return to local authorities the money that is due for paying out full housing benefit.
The Government are still operating a policy of pricing people out of renting local authority properties unless they are on high or medium wages. There is almost a deliberate edge, to force people to buy by pricing them out of renting. The guidelines set by the Government for local authority rent increases this year assume a 9 per cent. increase. That is well above the rate of inflation, yet those are the costs that tenants are asked to pay; that is the money that local authorities have to raise to balance their housing revenue accounts.
On 24 March my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) asked the Secretary of State
what assessment he has made as to the likely effect on the
building of houses by housing associations of the reduction of housing association grants.
The Minister for Housing and Planning replied:
Increasing the private finance input into housing association schemes enables us to produce significantly greater numbers of new homes with the available public resources. The reduction in the average housing association grant for rented schemes from 72 per cent. in 1992–93 to 67 per cent. in 1993–94 was achieved through lower costs without any significant impact on the affordability of rents implied."—[Official Report, 24 March 1993; Vol. 221, c. 625.]
A lot of meaning must be attached to the little word "implied". It is not the view of housing associations or their tenants that there has been no significant impact on affordability. There has indeed been a significant impact and not only I but many other hon. Members, including Conservative Members, are receiving letters from tenants in housing associations saying that they are finding it difficult to meet their rents.
On 24 March the National Federation of Housing Associations launched its affordability campaign, because it believes that the affordability crisis is now undermining housing association provision of housing to rent. If the housing associations constitute the only social rented sector that the Government are prepared to support, where does the Minister expect people to go if he prices them out of housing association properties? Even the Government's 1988 deregulation of the private rented sector did not revive it; there has been no substantial increase in properties available for private renting. There is a massive shortage of properties in the public, council rented sector. If people cannot afford their housing association flats and houses, where are they to move to? Where else can they go?
The housing associations' campaign on affordability points out that since 1989 housing association grants, the Government subsidy to housing association development, had been fixed at an average level of 75 per cent. throughout the country, but that in 1992–93 it fell to 72 per cent. and that it is now scheduled to fall to 67 per cent. But in the Department of the Environment's public expenditure announcement following the autumn statement the Government set an objective of reducing the grant to 60 per cent. in 1994–95 and to 55 per cent. in 1995–96.
The Government have not previously set grant rates for subsequent years. In a parliamentary reply on 24 March to a question from me suggesting that grants were projected to drop to those rates, the Minister said that it was alarmist propaganda. If he believes that the public expenditure statements of the Department of the Environment are


alarmist propaganda, he should eat his own words, because it is there in black and white. It says that that is the Government's objective. In a speech at the London School of Economics the Housing Minister confirmed that that reduction in grant rates was his objective.
The consequences of the reduction in grant rates will be higher rents, the growth of dependency of housing association tenants on housing benefit, housing association revenue streams increasingly dependent on housing benefit and difficulties faced by housing associations in sustaining levels of private finance. If the grant rate changes take place, it is estimated that housing associations will need to raise an extra £400 million in private finance in 1995–96 simply to maintain a stable programme. Have the Government done the arithmetic on that? Do they believe that they can raise that money? Will not the Minister concede that it is an unrealistic additional amount for housing associations to find?
What will happen? There will be a vicious circle of higher rents, housing benefit dependency and reduced loan security, all as a result of a reduction in grant rates in the Government's attempt to push the housing association movement further in the direction of raising private finance.
The National Federation of Housing Associations commissioned UBS Phillips and Drew to forecast the factors that are incorporated into the grant rate and the total cost indicator systems which govern the costs and rents of housing association production. The calculations based on those forecasts are that rents are likely to increase by a further 70 per cent. on average and dependency on housing benefit will increase to 85 per cent. of housing association tenants. It will be 90 per cent. for two-parent households.
Such percentages of incomes spent on housing costs are well beyond what is expected anywhere else in the world. The OECD suggested that if a person or a family spent more than 30 per cent. of income on housing costs, there would not be sufficient left to feed and clothe themselves, apart from the cost of travel to work.
The Government have not revealed their estimate of an acceptable percentage of income to spend on housing costs, but the Treasury has assumed a figure of 34·7 per cent. since 1989. Under the proposals for one parents and single people, that figure will be over 40 per cent. For pensioner households the position will be even worse. If grant rates drop to 55 per cent., according to the UBS Phillips and Drew survey, pensioner couples will spend 45 per cent. of their income on rent and single pensioners 52 per cent. Single people under 25 will pay 48 per cent. Those levels are unsustainable.
I hope that the Minister has seen the background briefing notes of the National Federation of Housing Associations which give figures based on the federation's continuous recording of lettings data on new tenants supplied by the associations that make up the federation. They show that 76 per cent. of new working tenants will spend more than one third of their income on rent. The question that must be asked is: in those circumstances, how could the new rents be considered affordable on any reasonable interpretation of the word? Working households becoming association tenants will face an average rent of £84·37 in 1996, compared with £48·11 in 1992. On average that group will be spending 39·3 per cent. of their income on rent in 1996, compared with 28·9 per cent. in 1992.
In other words, the percentage of new working tenants who spend more than a third of their incomes on rent will rise from 27 per cent. in 1992 to 76 per cent. in 1996. Is that the Government's intention? If so, the only conclusion is that they assume that the bill will be picked up by the Department of Social Security in housing benefit, because 89 per cent. of new tenants will be on full or partial benefit. I should be interested to know whether the Department of the Environment and the Housing Minister have clearance from the Secretary of State for Social Security to escalate housing benefit in such a way. If 89 per cent. of all new housing association tenants moving into new homes in 1966 are on housing benefit because of the change in grant rates—reducing them to 55 per cent.—they will qualify for weekly housing benefit of £30·72 in 1996, compared with £13·28 in 1992. In that case, the Government will have to pay drastically more in housing benefit.
When we look at the annual report of the Department of the Environment, we find that the increase in housing benefit for private tenants and housing association tenants in the past 12 months is incredible. I cannot see the Treasury allowing the Department of the Environment to get away with a policy of simply saying that it will jack up the rents and the Department of Social Security will pick up the bill. I suspect that the Government will start to claw it back.
If everyone is pushed into housing benefit, the question again arises: in those circumstances, is it worth new tenants having a job? In other words, if they are offered a job, they are put in the real dilemma of having to refuse it because they will not be able to make up the difference between the high rent and what they would have got on housing benefit.
Pensioners will face worse affordability problems. In 1991–92, pensioner households, except housing association lettings, paid an average of 38 per cent. of their net incomes in gross rent, compared with 25 per cent. for households under pensioner age. We all know that, because pensioners who visit our surgeries or write to us often set out their payments in detail. They can tell us their weekly milk bills. They do the arithmetic because they must pay the price of increasing bills. Pensioners will be hard-pressed if rents increase in this way because not all of them are on full housing benefit: some get a modest supplementary pension which, effectively, eliminates them from access to housing benefit. They then have to find the rent. Pensioner households pay higher average weekly gross rents than non-pensioner ones—in 1991–92, the figure was £42·49 compared with £38·30.
Are the Government suggesting that housing associations will provide welfare housing with a vengeance only for those on housing benefit? The trend is already shifting in that direction because 70 per cent. of tenants in housing associations are on benefit, compared with about 66 per cent. of council tenants. If they are saying that, there is another twist because the housing will be available only for pensioners on housing benefit.
If unemployed people on benefit are offered a job, they must accept it, regardless of how low paid it is, or they will lose the benefit. That is the new trap under the social security rules. The double-jeopardy is that, if people accept a part-time, temporary, low-paid job, it may float them out of a benefit but not give them sufficient to make up the difference in rent and they will have to move out. Even for the elderly, a bit of supplementary pension from a partner


could mean that housing association properties will need notes in the windows saying "DSS only apply", which we have seen previously. If people cannot guarantee that they are on full housing benefit, they will not be able to afford the rent.
So what is the future of housing associations? The Mail on Sunday on 21 February said:
Private developers could be given Government cash to build low-cost homes for homeless and poor families. Ministers may allow builders to compete with housing associations for a slice of £2 billion of Whitehall funding. Tory MPs pushing for the change are concerned that housing associations are failing to give value for money. They believe that savings could be made by 'cutting out the middleman' and funding developers directly. They argue that private developers could build more homes with the money through greater expertise and lower costs.
The hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Sir P. Beresford) said in the article:
I understand from the private sector that value for money is not being given. Many of the builders concerned claim they could build more homes for the same costs.
I should like the Minister to confirm whether that is Government policy. Does he see the housing association grant going directly to the builders when it drops to 55 per cent?
So the great honeymoon of the housing association world which the Government supported seems to be coming to a close. What are the Government's intentions for the housing association world? Do they see it having a future, providing what they would describe as "socially rented housing", or do they see the grant going direct to the builders to provide more housing at lower cost?
The race for market rents was set off by the Housing Act 1988, which was to free the private rented sector. I remember asking the Housing Minister during proceedings on that Bill whether he had persuaded the Department of Social Security to agree to underwrite the housing benefit bill if landlords decided simply to jack up the rents and charge what they wanted. I remember the Minister saying that of course landlords could not put the rent up to £100 or £150 a week and simply claim that the person was on housing benefit. What have we seen happen?
We were given another notion—market rents. What do we get now? Week after week, I receive scores of letters from people who went to the rent assessment committee because the landlord proposed to increase their rent and found that the committee agreed to increase the rent by even more. What is happening in the private rented sector is exactly what was predicted would happen. Rents are going through the roof. So far, the Government simply say that it is deregulation and that those who cannot afford rents can obtain housing benefit. How long will it be, I am worried to ask, before the Treasury cuts the housing benefit bill? Will it be in November, when the tapers are reduced, that people are told that they have to pay more rent?
I conclude with a remark that the Minister made to me when I put it to him in environment questions on 24 March that the housing association grant reduction would cause real hardship. He replied:
I reject the alarmist propaganda that the hon. Gentleman has just revealed to the House."—[Official Report, 24 March 1993; Vol. 221, c. 906.]

Is the UBS Phillips and Drew survey alarmist? Are the housing associations being alarmist? They tell the truth about the arithmetic and who will pay the price if the Government press ahead with their proposal.
When we talk about propaganda, the Minister should look at his Department's news releases, in particular the one of 18 March which committed the Government to spending £1·4 million on an advertising scheme to remind tenants of their right to buy. The news release which relaunched the campaign said:
Many council tenants could find that the costs of buying compare very well with the costs of renting. In fact, an average Right to Buy mortgage repayment will be less than the average rent as from April.
Of course it will if the rents are increased to price people out into taking on mortgages. I suggest to the Minister that that statement says a lot more about the increasing costs of renting than about the availability of cheap mortgages. That is the problem. When we have a Government abolishing wages councils and driving wages down, of course the rents will be beyond people's means and the equations start to look different.
The Minister says in page 3 of the press release:
Rents however have risen and now average rents are £33·00 a week (expected figure for April 1993) or £145 per calendar month. So mortgage costs could in fact now be less than renting costs.
I am tempted to add that it is almost like an advertisement for a timeshare. It is certainly not a commitment to a decent, affordable renting policy; it is simply suggesting that people should get out of renting and take themselves into mortgages as quickly as possible.
There we have it. That is the real propaganda, the real direction of Government policy. There is a fundamental contradiction between a Government's economic policy developing a low-wage economy and a Department of the Environment insisting on high rents. We need more rented housing; that has to be the primary position; but we also need to tackle affordability, or, in effect, people will be priced out of renting.
If the Government pursue the present policies in the public sector, the housing associations and the private sector, people will be priced out of renting. The only conclusion can be an increase in homelessness as people try to live with others, on sofas and floors, or take to the streets. What worries me is that this time it could mean homelessness among the elderly on a scale which, so far, our society fortunately has not had to face.
That might sound alarmist to the Minister, but I suggest that he does his homework on the figures. The Government could, and should, act now to pre-empt that potential scandal. The primary need is for homes to rent. The Government should ensure that people can afford to pay their rent according to their real income and means; if they do not, they will be culpably compounding the homelessness crisis and rendering the word affordability totally void of meaning.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tony Baldry): With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I wish to respond to the debate.
On the Order Paper, the debate is entitled "affordability of housing". The question what is the right price level for social housing is not an easy one. This is not a simple matter of deciding that it would be nice if accommodation


were cheaper, and legislating to that end. Indeed, it could be argued that many of the current inequalities in the housing market have their roots in decisions taken on past occasions, based on precisely that sort of ill-considered wishful thinking.
One of the reasons why this country has one of the smallest private rented sectors in Europe is that the artificial rent controls effectively destroyed the private rented sector for the decades after the first world war.

Mr. Battle: rose—

Mr. Baldry: I have hardly started my speech before the hon. Gentleman invites me to give way, but I am happy to do so.

Mr. Battle: I am grateful, but it is one of the big myths that Government keep running, and it ought to be nailed as a lie. The reason why the rented sector declined is that landlords sold the houses to put the money in the bank. It was cheaper, when interest rates were high, to sell the property and accumulate money that way. Was not the cause of the gentrification of inner cities and the decline of rented housing the fact that the amount of housing to buy went up?

Mr. Baldry: That is a total canard, as the hon. Gentleman knows. The private sector declined from the first world war onwards because of rent controls which artificially kept down the return that landlords were able to make upon their investment—rent controls that were maintained by successive Labour Governments, which effectively destroyed the private rented sector. It has only been since the 1988 housing legislation, when we freed rents to proper market levels, that we have begun to see, for the first time for many decades, a private rented sector in which new tenancies equal those that are falling in.

Mr. Raynsford: rose—

Mr. Baldry: No. I have listened to a lot from the hon. Gentlemen. They have both made very long speeches. They have both made a lot of points to which they want me to respond. It is a complex subject, and one on which I wish to respond in my own time and in my own way.
To begin with, housing is not, like some other goods such as education or health services, predominantly a public sector matter. Most households prefer to own their own homes, and a major element of our housing policies has been focused on enabling them to do so. The right to buy for council housing, and now our rents-to-mortgages proposals; cash incentive schemes to enable public sector tenants to move out into owner-occupation; shared ownership schemes—these are all important parts of our commitment to empower those who want to own their own homes to do just that. With affordability levels high, with mortgage rates at their lowest for 25 years, and with some impressive fixed rate mortgage deals on offer, now is an excellent time for those thinking about buying into the market to do so.
Not every household will want, or be able to afford, owner-occupation, so our policies also address the demand for rented accommodation; but here as well we must remember that housing for rent is not a public sector monopoly; although the private rented sector has been a declining force in housing provision throughout the century, there is now evidence of an increase in private lettings in response to the measures we have taken to

encourage the private rented sector. Housing benefit means that tenants who rent from private owners are not left on their own if they face difficulty in meeting their housing costs.
Therefore, the question of affordability in the social housing sector is not something which can be treated in isolation. Not only do we need to remember the interaction with the other housing sectors; we also need to consider what the nation as a whole can afford to spend on housing programmes; to make sure that what we can afford is targeted as closely as possible on those in the greatest need; and to use it as efficiently as possible.
In the local authority sector, we have intentionally been moving towards a more market-based system of rents, where the rent the authority charges reflects the value of a letting. Instead of subsidising the bricks and mortar of the property itself, we have been subsidising the people who matter—individual tenants. That approach means that where local authority tenants can afford to pay more towards their housing costs, they do so.
In the past, there has been a great deal of emphasis on keeping down gross rents. However, that policy has produced some pretty odd results. In the local authority sector, rents have tended to reflect historic investment costs and arbitrary decisions on rent levels by local authorities rather than the intrinsic value of the housing on offer.
Thus, it has been common for local authorities to charge a high rent for a virtually uninhabitable system-built flat simply because the investment was recent and the debt charges high, and a much lower rent for a pleasant, traditional older house built some time ago. It is no wonder that some estates have been hard to let. As well as relative rents being out of line with reality, the average level of all gross local authority rents had reached an artifically low level by the time we took office in 1979, so we have been pursuing a policy of gradually increasing local authority rents in real terms.
Ring-fencing the housing revenue account has put an end to arbitrary subsidies to or from the ratepayer or council tax payer, and by shifting subsidy from bricks and mortar to people, we achieve a fairer distribution of the available subsidy.
The increases have not been severe, as we accept that tenants who do not receive housing benefit need to be protected from too steep a withdrawal of the subsidy to their rents. In order to move towards a more rational pattern of local authority rents, we have been targeting our guideline rent increases according to the capital value of different local authority housing stocks, so the authorities with the most valuable stocks are those that increase their rents the most.
We have also encouraged all authorities to move towards a more rational pattern of rent among their different properties—a pattern that reflects the value rather than the cost of different local authority homes. A tenant who is unable to meet the full cost of the rent gets means-related help from the housing benefit system. Some 70 per cent. of local authority rent increases are met by rent rebates.
Since 1989, local authorities have faced the discipline of the ring-fenced housing revenue account. It increases the focus on the delivery of housing management services, which are properly chargeable to rents. It means that authorities cannot bail out an inefficient housing operation at the expense of the local council tax payer, as too many


did in the past. The need to make sure that rental income, together with the support we provide through the housing revenue account subsidy, meet outgoings provides a vital check. I make no apology for moving the subsidy away from the buildings and towards the people who live in them; and away from the suppliers and towards their customers. That is a crucial step towards a more efficient local authority housing sector. As local authorities grow into their role as enablers, and as the pressures of compulsory competitive tendering for housing management improve performance, I hope to see further improvements over the coming years.
While local authorities account for the bulk of the existing social rented sector, they are, of course, no longer the main suppliers of new social housing for rent. That role has been taken on by the housing associations, which have been able to make use of private finance to ensure that the funds they receive from the Government through the Housing Corporation are translated into the maximum number of good-quality homes.
Since 1988, public spending on housing association grant has been supplemented by more than £2 billion of private sector finance—a clear gain to housing output at a time of public spending restraint. That large sum of private finance has enabled a great deal of additional investment in social housing to take place. The average housing association grant rate for this year is 72 per cent. Private finance enables a third more homes to be built with the available public money than would otherwise be so. For 1993–94, grant rates have been reduced, without any impact on rents, because of competititive prices and low interest rates.
Our manifesto promised 153,000 new homes to rent over a period of three years. I am confident that we shall do much better than that, partly because of the housing market package announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor in November. I shall outline the outstanding success of that package in a moment. The private funding that housing associations can raise, however, also makes a vital contribution. The reductions achieved this year through lower interest rates and competitive prices have enabled us to reduce the rate of housing association grant from 72 to 67 per cent. without any significant impact on the affordability of the rents implied by those grant rates. That has improved output—an extra 3,300 new homes provided this year as a result of the increase in private sector funds levered in.
We must strike a balance between rent levels and the number of homes provided. There is no magic wand that we can wave to make it possible to provide decent homes more cheaply. If we choose to provide subsidy at a higher level, we must forgo the extra output, which, I am sure that hon. Members would agree, is badly wanted by those in unsatisfactory accommodation. [Interruption.]
As with local authority tenants, it is only those on incomes high enough to be outside the housing benefit system who will face the full impact of higher rents. It is, of course, important that they do not face unfair rises or increases that are too steep. Where resources are available to tackle housing need, it must be right that we increasingly move towards directing them, through the

housing benefit system for poorer tenants, at those who have the greatest need, and make new homes available to those who are not satisfactorily housed.
Housing associations have been able to take advantage of low interest rates and low building costs to build more homes and house more people. Opposition Members will hear concerns about affordability from housing associations—as I frequently do. The hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) referred to the lobbying that housing associations have been carrying out in recent days.
What is most significant and at the crux of the debate—although housing associations have not made it clear in their various representations—is that this year, at a time when those associations have been expressing concern about affordability and the housing association grant rate, those self-same associations have put forward more than four and a half times the number of schemes that can be supported by the resources available for this year. At those grant rates, their bids have been four and a half times the amount of the money available. That clearly suggests that, whatever concerns they may express in public, housing associations have confidence in their ability to make use of the resources available at those grant rates and to achieve the higher outputs that we have sought.
The hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) argued that 67 per cent. was the minimum grant rate that it was possible to sustain. I simply invite him to explain how, when housing associations are bidding at levels of four and a half times the money available through existing grant rates, one can possibly justify saying that 67 per cent. is the absolute minimum for housing association grant.

Mr. Raynsford: Will the Minister answer the following question, which will help him to resolve the question that he has put to me? Has the Housing Corporation—which, as he knows, recommends to Ministers the appropriate grant rate for housing associations—recommended the reduction of grant rates from 72 to 67 per cent? If it did not, the Minister will have to explain to the House why he and his colleagues ignored the advice of the Housing Corporation, which was concerned about the affordability problems that were being caused by reducing grant rates.

Mr. Baldry: Before I answer that question, the Official Report will show that the hon. Gentleman completely ducked and evaded the question that I asked him, which is the core question. I will answer his question about the advice from the Housing Corporation as it raises the issue contained in his speech—and about which he has been muttering sotto voce ever since—about whether we would contemplate increasing the housing association grant rate.
We have repeatedly made it clear that, year on year, we make no final decisions about the grant rate until we have all the evidence and advice, which obviously includes advice that we receive from the Housing Corporation. This year, I suspect that it will also include the advice that may be offered by the Select Committee on the Environment, of which the hon. Gentleman is a member and which is currently conducting a study into the Housing Corporation and its work.
We have made no shadow of a secret of the fact that our objective is to increase the proportion of private financing put into new schemes in future by reducing grant rates to 60 per cent. in 1994–95, in line with the wider initiatives to expand the role of private finance announced in the autumn statement. But final decisions will be taken only


when we have assessed the likely impact on housing associations' ability to raise the private finance necessary. Those decisions are taken year on year, and they will be taken against the background of that available information. Within that context, the Housing Corporation's advice will always be listened to carefully, as it was last year, but we will also bear in mind the need to make sure that the resources available go, as far as possible, towards helping those who need a home.
With a finite amount of capital for investment, we have to examine the trade-off between how much we can do and how much we ask tenants to pay for it. At whatever level of capital spending, we are forced to choose between building fewer homes with lower rents or more homes with higher rents. Some large numbers are involved in that trade-off. Quite small reductions in the subsidy that we pay to suppliers of housing association homes, in the case of new housing, can have a major impact on output.
This year's reductions in average housing association grant level by just 5 per cent. will enable an extra 3,300 homes to be built. In that case, rents will not have to rise, because the grant rate reductions have been made possible by cost savings. If we had followed the policies advocated by the Opposition, those extra houses would never have been built.
Recently, there have been some encouraging signs emerging from the statistics of families accepted as homeless by local authorities. The number of homelessness acceptances in 1992 was 2 per cent. less than in the previous year—the first year-on-year reduction. The signs on the use of bed-and-breakfast accommodation are even more encouraging, with only 7,500 households housed there by local authorities, compared with more than 12,000 a year ago, and that is a drop of 38 per cent. We hope that, as the new homes made available through the housing market passage come on stream, the figures will continue their current hopeful trends.
I am happy to be able to tell the House that the housing market package has exceeded our expectations, and I should like to take the opportunity to congratulate all those who have been involved on the work they have done. Around 18,000 homes for rent will be made available in England, well exceeding the target of 16,000; grants to local authority and housing association tenants will enable some 3,500 households to move into the owner-occupied sector, freeing their current homes for those in need.
The 80 housing associations involved deserve great credit for their achievement. What they had to undertake was not inconsiderable within the time scale, and purchases have been made right across the country in almost all local authority areas, making a vital contribution towards meeting housing need, and often bringing on significant numbers of new houses for rent within particular areas.
However, we shall never allow ourselves to become complacent. Homelessness is still a significant problem, which demands tough decisions on how we use the resources at our disposal. The families who are still in unsatisfactory bed-and-breakfast accommodation, and

who need a home of their own to give them a chance to bring up their children in the way they would want, will not thank us if we allow concern for existing tenants who are already comfortably housed, and who can afford to pay a little more towards the cost of their housing, to dominate our thinking at the expense of building new homes.
It is not just those who are unsatisfactorily housed in temporary accommodation who should be at the front of our minds. We must also remember the needs of those who have no home at all. Our rough sleepers initiative has made a significant impact on the problem of rough sleeping in central London. We have spent over £96 million. That money will provide nearly 1,000 hostel bedspaces, 700 places in flats and houses leased from the private sector, and more than 2,000 places in permanent move-on accommodation.
The hon. Member for Leeds, West made various assertions alleging that those who had been housed in rough weather shelters had not been provided with accommodation when they left. His figures are badly wrong. Only about 10 people were refused further accommodation, but I do not intend to have a spat about that at this early hour in the morning. I will arrange to have the information that we have made available in the Official Report so that it can be seen on the record, and there can be no doubt of the success of those involved in those schemes.
These measures have been having success. Independent research suggests that the number of people sleeping rough in central London has more than halved from its level of three years ago. We need to do what we can to ensure that the figures continue to reduce, and it is vital that all the agencies concerned with rough sleepers co-operate to achieve that end. At Lincoln's Inn fields, for example, Camden council, the Government, and voluntary organisations have co-operated to ensure that everybody formerly living there was offered alternative accommodation.
Tackling rough sleeping is not a simple task. It requires close co-ordination between central Government and local government, housing associations, and voluntary groups, to ensure that the needs of those sleeping rough are tackled in the round, and to make sure that rough sleepers have the opportunity to start a new life with more secure housing. The work of the rough sleepers initiative is not just the work of central Government; it depends on all the agencies involved working together with those who need shelter to find the right solutions.
I have talked about the needs of those who are without a proper permanent home to emphasise that, when we talk about affordability, we need to remember the purpose of our housing policy. It is to ensure that a decent home is in reach of every family. That is not wishful thinking—it is a substantial commitment—but it involves hard choices. It requires us to make sure that the resources that we can afford as a nation are targeted as closely as possible on the real problems, and on those in greatest need, and we are determined to do that.

Orders of the Day — Child Support Agency

Mr. Harry Cohen: I am pleased to have secured a debate on the operational guidelines for the Child Support Agency. The agency will come into operation on 5 April and I have already heard advertisements for it on the radio which have a background of reassuring, soft-soap music that is intended to assure the public that it will be of assistance to them. The adverts hide, however, the operation of a potentially vicious piece of legislation, especially for many of the women whom it is intended to help. I think that it will help many women to obtain maintenance payments from the father of their child and it will also help some fathers. At the same time, it is potentially vicious for some women. I shall set out the reasons for that when I refer to the operational guidelines.
The Child Support Act 1991 passed through the House without the detailed scrutiny that such a measure should have received. That was probably because it passed through this place shortly before the general election. It was the strategy of the then leader of the Labour party, my right hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock), not to make matters such as child support issues in the election campaign. He decided to concentrate on the main areas of difference between the parties, such as unemployment and the national health service, and to avoid other arguments. In some instances it was felt that the Labour party would have problems in defending itself and in others it was considered that the issues could be distorted. We know, however, that my right hon. Friend did not concentrate entirely on unemployment and the NHS and that he introduced proportional representation at the end of the campaign, but that is history. It was the tactic not to make the Child Support Bill an issue.
The principle that a father should pay for his child is generally accepted. I do not think that there is any doubt about that. It is only unfortunate that the details behind the principle were not examined in detail. For example, the Treasury will be the main benefactor when the agency comes into operation. We know that 70 per cent. of all single mothers are on income support. Every extra penny that they obtain through the agency will go to the Treasury. The guidelines were not issued at the time that the Bill passed through the House, so the intimidation aspect was not given proper consideration. Nor were the family poverty consequences of the benefit penalties considered. If a woman is deemed not to have co-operated, she can lose £8·80 per week from her income support for six months and a further £4·40 per week for the next 12 months. That can push a woman and her family below the poverty line, so both her welfare and that of her child or children may be jeopardised. The House did not give the Bill the scrutiny that it deserved.
There is no advantage to pursuing a maintenance claim for the majority of the 70 per cent. of single mothers on income support because any maintenance would be set off against their income support. Many of those women would not receive an extra penny, yet they would confront a panoply of threats and risks. The operational guidelines will discourage genuine income claims from many women.
Intimidation by DSS or Child Support Agency officers, however well they have been trained, will inevitably occur. The woman could be "locked up" in a DSS office, perhaps

with her child, until she gives the required information. Under the guidelines, she can be pursued at her home or at work until she provides that information. She may be at home and without any support while the interview is conducted. She may be asked intimate questions about her sex life that she does not want to answer. She may be told that she has no good reason for refusing to give information, even if she fears that to do so might have violent consequences for her and her children. She can also be threatened with the benefit cuts to which I referred earlier. Women in that situation must take on the new role of informers to the DSS part of the police state that is being established in that respect.
The message to women with children on benefits is that they cannot be independent—they must disclose information about themselves and about the father of their children, or they will lose a substantial proportion of their benefit.
The guidelines place a woman and her child or children at personal risk. The Child Support Agency leaves women in the lurch and accepts no responsibilty for the consequences of a woman disclosing information that the agency requires. Under the application of the "Requirement to Co-operate Policy Guidelines", which were recently published, the parent with care—PWC—must show good cause for refusing to co-operate, or she will lose benefit. Even if she fears that making such a disclosure is against her own best interests, she must do so. The guidelines give many examples of women being forced to disclose.
The beginning of the guidelines refers to a parent not having to give the information if she will suffer "harm or undue distress" as a result. That seems reasonable, but no technical definition of harm or undue distress is given: a good deal of discretion is given to the Child Support Agency and the DSS officer concerned.
The guidelines give the dictionary definition of harm—
to hurt, injure or damage"—
and of undue distress—
excessive, unjustifiable or disproportionate strain, pressure, anguish or pain".
What the guidelines do not mention is the woman's fear of those experiences. That is an unsatisfactory start: the guidelines do not provide the necessary get-out for the woman who could become a victim if she discloses information about the father of her child.
The guidelines give the DSS the opportunity to "doorstep" a woman at her home, perhaps to snoop on her—that has happened in the past—or even to knock on the door of her place of work. Paragraph 7 states:
several important points … should be borne in mind"—
I shall return to that phrase—
the welfare of any children living with the PWC must be considered.
That is not a factor that would allow a woman not to disclose if the children's welfare would be damaged; it need only be "borne in mind" by the DSS officer. In many ways it is a meaningless guideline and the DSS is likely to go ahead and cut the benefit anyway if it so chooses.
Paragraph 7 states that
the PWC has a right to be believed unless what she says is inherently contradictory or implausible".
Implausible to whom? To the DSS officer. If he takes a hard line, the phrase "borne in mind" will not fit the bill.
There is another interesting aspect of paragraph 7, which states:


a reduced benefit direction is a strong sanction and will have an important impact on the income of a PWC".
In the context of paragraph 7, that is a threat: a DSS officer can say, "I am going to impose this sanction to make you give the information."
The paragraph also states that such reductions should not feature in any benefit savings statistics. That is disingenuous: over time, pressure could still be imposed for cutting benefits. The Government have published league tables in every other area; they may do the same in this regard, thus putting pressure on DSS officers to cut benefit.
If the woman fails to complete and return the form she will be penalised. She will be deemed to have refused to co-operate. Paragraph 12 says that the Child Support Agency is supposed to help a woman who does not want to fill in the form—for reasons connected with her own safety-to obtain maintenance. That is a lie, for 70 per cent. of women will obtain no extra maintenance. That money goes to the Treasury. Women will see through that deception.
The paragraph also says that the absent parent will not be given the woman's address by the DSS officer, or even information about the town where she lives. That would be a welcome statement, if it were true. In most circumstances, however, the absent parent will know the woman's address. I have already asked why the Child Support Agency does not pick up the consequences of its actions. It does not offer any support to women who want to be rehoused if they have been forced to give this information. In the majority of cases, the absent parent is likely to know the address. The Child Support Agency does not help the woman to find safe housing when her address is known to the absent parent.
The paragraph goes on to state that the payment of maintenance does not give the absent parent the right to contact the child. What help is there with legal fees in those circumstances? The social fund does not make it a priority for the DSS to obtain an injunction against the absent parent to prevent him from gaining access, if that is what the woman wants. The Child Support Agency washes its hands, even though that is the consequence of what it forces upon women in a number of cases.
In addition, the paragraph states that the mother may want more flexibility in her life and that maintenance will help her to get it. In the majority of cases, that is a laughable statement. If a single mother is on income support, any maintenance is matched by a cut in her benefit. There is no flexibility for her. The extra money goes to the Treasury.
Paragraph 13 states that if a woman still refuses to co-operate, despite knowing of the help that she can obtain from the Child Support Agency, consideration will need to be given to whether the parent with care and/or any children living with her will be at risk of harm or undue distress. Again, that sounds all right, but it could be interpreted as the DSS saying to the woman, "You're not a proper mother. You haven't co-operated." My reading of that paragraph is that the kids could end up going into care. Co-operation with the Child Support Agency is regarded in the guidelines as more important than a woman's perception of the harm or damage that might be done to her or her children. That is not satisfactory.
According to paragraph 14 of the guidelines, there will be no definitive list of circumstances. Each case will be taken as it comes. That could lead to considerable

inconsistency in deciding who must disclose and who does not have to disclose. A woman in one area may have to disclose, whereas a woman in exactly similar circumstances in another area may not.
The guidelines deal also with the question of fear of violence. In this regard, there is the matter of the victims of sexual abuse, including rape and incest, resulting in the birth of a child. Pressure is put on the woman to name the father, even in those serious and fearful circumstances. Again the Child Support Agency washes its hands of the consequences, saying that they are a matter for the police and that it will not reveal the woman's address. That might well be ludicrous, for obvious reasons. In such circumstances the Child Support Agency makes absolutely no commitment to provide safe housing—another appalling fault. Paragraph 18 says that, although cases must be handled with extreme care, the information must be obtained. It must be obtained despite the woman's fears.
Paragraph 19 provides that it is for the officer of the Child Support Agency, not for the woman, to determine whether there is a risk of harm or undue distress. What will be the level of an officer making such decisions? I expect that it is likely to be a relatively low level on the administrative scale, yet the officer will have enormous discretion in cases of considerable sensitivity.
Paragraphs 20 to 24 relate to an absent parent who may want to see his child. Paragraph 20 deals with the fear that if the absent parent is required to pay maintenance he will demand to see the child, even if that is considered to be disruptive. The woman may wish to sever all links with the absent parent. These are very good reasons for not having to provide information, but it is not recognised in the guidelines. The guidelines state that maintenance is entirely separate from access. They also state that many parents with care and absent parents
are known to link the two but it is important to stress that both the parents are responsible for maintaining the child subject to their financial circumstances.
In other words, it is admitted that parents link the two issues. That is right, because, in many cases, if the absent parent pays maintenance, he will demand access and thus come back into the woman's life, which could cause great problems for her. In any event, that will be her fear.
Once again, the Child Support Agency washes its hands of the matter. There is no comment on what happens if the woman's fears are realised and the father demands access. The guidelines contain no help for the woman or child whose lives might be disrupted. They take no account of the possible consequences of its demands.
Paragraph 22 states:
A belief that an approach to an AP would result in demand for contact should not, on its own, normally be sufficient to enable a PWC to succeed in a claim that harm or undue distress
would be caused. Again, the guidelines ride roughshod over the mother's fears. It is for the courts, or someone else, to take up the issue of access, but there is no help for the woman to get a court injunction. She will get nothing from the social fund in those circumstances. Often, it will be too late for her to go to court because the damage will have been done.
Paragraph 23 states:
The PWC's wish to sever links with the AP should not normally provide grounds for her to succeed in a claim of harm or undue distress. There would normally need to be additional factors


for that to be the case. The wishes of the parent with care are being overridden by the DSS, with the result that she must make a disclosure.
Paragraph 24 states that PWCs
may refuse to co-operate because it could cause them or their children undue distress to re-open any degree of contact after a lengthy period.
In that case, additional factors would be required for the case to be made. Paragraphs 22 to 24 reveal that the Child Support Agency could not care less about the children's best interests.
Paragraph 26 is interesting. It states:
Sometimes, a PWC will wish to protect an AP … because he is living in a stable relationship with someone else',
but the guidelines do not care about that. The paragraph continues:
It would be unusual for this situation to justify a claim that co-operating would cause undue distress".
even though it might be a genuine reason for not making a disclosure. Why should a state agency disrupt a stable relationship in another family?
The same paragraph also states:
The PWC should be reminded that the CSA will act as a buffer between her and the AP and that … contact with the AP will be on a confidential basis.
A lot of women will not believe that that will necessarily happen. There is no guarantee of confidentiality, and the CSA is not liable if it breaks that guideline. That is not satisfactory.
Paragraph 27 is about parents who are juveniles—that is, parents who are either under 16 or, although over 16, are still classed as children for income support purposes. They do not have to disclose who the absent parent is, but they will have to do so as soon as they put in their own claim for income support, when they become 16 or when they leave school, so they could well face threats and intimidation along the lines of, "Disclose the parent now, because you will have to tell us when you are 16 anyway." So juvenile mothers could be put under great duress.
Paragraphs 29 and 30 refer to those who may face criminal prosecution. Again, juveniles may be involved. One or other of the parents may have been under age, so there could be a prosecution. Paragraph 29 says:
Other than in the most exceptional circumstances"—
which it does not explain—
information obtained by the Child Support Agency will not be passed to the police.
Again, there is no guarantee of that. A lot of DSS information is passed to the police, via a telephone call from police officers to the DSS office, for example. Many parents will not believe that the information will not be passed on and that prosecution will not result.
Paragraph 30 says:
it is unlikely that these circumstances"—
that is, the fear of being prosecuted—
on their own, will be sufficient to justify a refusal to co-operate.
Again, people are being forced to co-operate on pain of losing their benefit.
Paragraph 31 is about artificial insemination. There has been extensive correspondence, in which the Minister has been involved, on that subject in The Guardian. I shall not go into detail about that, but perhaps the Minister will comment on it, because he remarks in his letters to the

newspaper have provoked further correspondence saying that people who have had artificial insemination still have to name the father.
Paragraph 31 also says that the former husband may have to pay maintenance. That is incredible. The former husband may have opposed the artificial insemination, or it may have taken place after the relationship had broken down. Yet he will still be pursued for maintenance. That is most unsatisfactory.
Paragraph 35 is concerned with cases in which the parent with care wanted the child but the absent parent did not. The guidelines say that, regardless of those circumstances, the absent parent still has to pay. That could be unfair in many cases. For instance, there could have been deception. There is an argument that it would be unfair for the father to have to pay in such a case.
Single women, and their freedom of choice to have a child, are the real target of the guidelines.
If a single woman—perhaps a lesbian—wants to have a child, but does not want to name the father, she will be forced to go with someone anonymous so that she cannot provide a name. That is forcing that woman into something even more immoral and denying her freedom of choice. Again, that is not acceptable.
Paragraph 40 refers to voluntary arrangements under which the parent with care may not wish to co-operate because she considers that she already has a satisfactory arrangement with the absent parent and does not wish to disturb it. According to the paragraph, she should co-operate. The disturbance of a voluntary agreement would not on its own be sufficient to justify a claim of harm or undue distress. Again, the woman will be forced to go against what she considers her own best interests.
Paragraph 41 deals with a parent with care who is mentally ill or handicapped. That might prevent her from understanding what was required, so that she might seem unco-operative. Officials are advised to treat her with patience and sensitivity because she may have given as much information as she could. The clear implication is that the DSS will still force a mentally ill or handicapped parent with care to provide the name of the father. At least, the paragraph is ambiguous and could be interpreted in that way by a hardliner in the Child Support Agency.
What about the woman who has had more than one lover around the time of conception? What will the agency do in those circumstances? Will the woman be forced to name one, both or more? Will the agency pursue the alleged absent parent and inform him that the woman slept with more than one man at the time? What will be the moral code in dealing with such cases? If either side wants DNA testing to establish the father's identity, will the agency wash its hands of the test and tell the person to pay for it if he is rich enough, or will it just label him as the parent? The Minister should answer that point. That will affect the father, but again the woman will be the victim: the DSS will be judgmental because she has had more than one lover at the time of conception. She will probably be deemed not to have co-operated and will therefore lose her benefit.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) wants to know what will happen in cases where there is a variation in the maintenance which has already been agreed by the courts. According to her constituents, already the courts are telling people that they


will not deal with the matter and that it is being referred to the new agency. What is happening? Is the agency usurping the role of the courts? That is a fair point.
There is the matter of a clean break. I shall read a passage from a recent issue of The Big Issue:
One of the more disturbing aspects of the New Act … is its retrospective powers. Over the past 20 years the divorce courts have favoured the clean-break principle. To guarantee a roof over the child's head, and ensure the mother was entitled to state benefits, the courts encouraged and, in many cases, ordered men to agree to clean breaks.
Usually this involved the man moving out of the matrimonial home and giving up his equity in it as an alternative to paying maintenance. These couples who made a clean break settlement will now have their agreements torn up by the CSA.
An article in The Guardian of 19 January says that the alternative will be exacerbated tension and wrangling over access, despite the fact that the clean-break principle was agreed. It interferes with the woman's right if she wants a clean break. The court was the final adjudicator on the matter, yet it will not be: the Child Support Agency will have the role retrospectively. It is forcing the woman to have economic dependency on a partner who is perhaps long gone from the relationship.
I shall say a word about men in such circumstances. They may have acquired the responsibility of a new family which will be disregarded in many respects by the Child Support Agency. Such men may be on income support or students with a loan, small grant or low wage which will be reduced. They may find themselves below the poverty level.
I quote a case referred to in the same issue of The Big Issue:
Rob, 37, lives in Sheffield. He left his wife, Lynn, three years ago. Since then he has paid no formal maintenance.
As part of a clean break agreement he moved out of the house, took on the family debts and agreed to share the care of his two daughters, who now split their time between their two parents' homes. In return he was given one third of the equity of the house and awarded a nominal maintenance order … Everyone thought the matter was settled.
But Lynn is now on Income Support. 'Already' Rod says, 'the DSS has intimidated her into giving them my address. My understanding is that any money taken from me will reduce Lynn's benefits. At the same time it will reduce the amount of money I have to spend on my children.'
Rod is unmoved by the suggestion that the taxpayer is supporting his children. 'I'm a taxpayer myself. I'm on low income and I pay tax at the single person's rate. I also spend money on my children. The Government has a responsibility to ensure that people do not fall below a minimum standard, children included.
The effect of the Act will be to make my children worse off. I'll do all I can to resist the Child Support Agency—not because I refuse to look after my children's interests, but because I want to look after them.'
That situation could be repeated in a number of circumstances.
The Child Support Agency and the guidelines to which I referred extensively could have some bad consequences for a large number of men, women and children. They could even result in violence as the bitterness which has long since been buried brought back to the surface. If that happens under the guidelines, the Child Support Agency will wash its hands of the consequences. That is immoral. The Government should re-examine the legislation, which in the next century may well be regarded as Dickensian.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Burt): First, I apologise to the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) for being a moment late arriving for the debate. I congratulate him on securing the last Adjournment debate of the night, and I am pleased to have an opportunity to respond to him.
The hon. Member and I know each other extremely well. I fully appreciate the sincerity with which he put his case. I hope that he will accept that I have the same degree of sincerity. I am worried about exactly the same people about whom he is worried. But I feel that the hon. Gentleman's fears are overblown. I hope to demonstrate to him in the next half hour or so that we have considered those fears carefully, and that they are met by the workings of the agency.
I begin by setting the Child Support Agency in context. The new agency is unique among the next steps agencies which have been set up by the Government, because it builds a new service from scratch. The service will create a new system for the assessment, collection and payment of child maintenance. The service will not only be available for those who usually come to the Department of Social Security and the Benefits Agency—those who receive benefits. It will also take over the role of the courts in assessing and enforcing maintenance for all parents who wish to take advantage of the new arrangements.
The aims of the agency are to deliver on behalf of children a consistent, effective and efficient service for the assessment, collection and payment of child maintenance. In addition, the agency aims to help parents with the care of children to make informed choices about whether to take up employment.
To achieve those aims, the agency's objectives are to implement the Child Support Act 1991 under agreed plans for the phased take-on of clients and ensure that maintenance assessments are accurate and payments are regular; to provide a service to clients which is accessible, courteous, prompt, fair and efficient, and seen by them as such; to provide clear and accurate information to clients and the public about the child support system and the services and benefits available to clients who are in work; to establish and maintain an effective working relationship with the courts, advice agencies and other organisations with an interest in the agency's business; to contribute to the Department's evaluation and development of policy and ensure that the agency can respond to change; and to make the most efficient and effective use of available resources.
The hon. Member began by saying that the purpose of the Child Support Act 1991 was not necessarily to benefit children but to benefit the taxpayer. In the case of those on income support, the broad principle behind the Child Support Act is that all parents have an obligation to maintain their children. A child has the right to be maintained by each of its parents financially, if the parents can afford to do so and no matter what the relationship between the parents has become.
The interest of the taxpayers is that, although all taxpayers would like to assist children when they need help and no other help is available, most taxpayers feel that, when the parents can meet an obligation to their children, they should do so. As the hon. Gentleman said, many taxpayers are low paid. They have their own families to look after. It surely cannot be wrong, then, that, if the


obligation towards a child can properly be met by the parent, it should be. If the money that is taken from the father is used to reduce the income support pound for pound, others are relieved of a burden which they should not have.
I also remind the hon. Gentleman that family credit—the "in work" benefit—has a £15 a week maintenance disregard, so there is an encouragement for a woman to go back to work. We recognise, as the hon. Gentleman will, that the majority of lone parents do not wish or intend to stay on income support for ever. Most lone parents want to get back into work. As their children become older, obviously it becomes easier for them to return to work.
Establishing maintenance in the first place is an important part of that process. Even if at first the woman receives no immediate benefit by way of an increase in the amount of money received, should she go back into work, the maintenance will provide an extra source of income. As time goes on, having that maintenance right established and being paid will add to a woman's options. The hon. Member will agree that we want women to have the maximum range of choice in circumstances such as he has described. I feel that that choice is extended by establishing maintenance at an early stage and maintaining it throughout the child's life. That is one of the purposes of the Act, so even if some women do not see an immediate benefit to themselves financially, the benefit can accrue in the medium and longer term, and can be a real and genuine benefit.
The hon. Gentleman spent some time dealing with the guidelines for the requirement to co-operate, which I fully understand. I will come to those in some detail as time goes on, but I should like to start with some general remarks about the requirement to co-operate and why it is there; and also place it in the context of some of the remarks that he made at the beginning of this debate about the way in which Opposition Front-Bench Members had dealt with the matters throughout.
It is not the first time, as the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, that the requirement to co-operate has been raised, either with me or with my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department of Social Security. I am, however, absolutely clear that the agency has put procedures in place to ensure that the policy of the Government is delivered, and that the policy is that the requirement to co-operate which applies to certain people receiving benefits will be waived if there are reasonable grounds for believing that there will be a risk of the parent with care or any child living with her suffering harm or undue distress as a result of authorising the Secretary of State to take action.
The hon. Gentleman questioned the need for the requirement to co-operate. I do not believe that that view is sustainable under any reasonable scrutiny. We have made it plain, and the hon. Gentleman accepts, as do his Front-Bench Members, that both parents are responsible for the financial support of their children.
During the consideration in Committee of the Child Support (Miscellaneous Amendment) Regulations 1993 on 17 March, the Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) said:

the Labour Opposition support strongly the principle of the Child Support Act of forcing financial responsibility on the absent parents".—[Official Report, Third Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c., 17 March 1993; c. 7.]
In another place, on 25 March, Baroness Hollis, took the same line in general, recognising that
both parents, have an obligation to maintain children and that when husbands walk away from wives, or when wives walk away from husbands, they do not also walk away from their children".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 25 March 1993; Vol. 544, c. 500.]
I do not believe that these general statements of support for the policy would bear any examination whatsoever if there were not some requirement on a parent with care to co-operate with the agency in seeking maintenance. If that were not the case, surely the hon. Gentleman would concede that those would just be hollow words. If it were possible for either parent, solely at his or her wish, to walk away from their obligations to their children merely because of a change in relationship between them, there would be a danger that the child would miss out. There has to be some consideration of sanction in order to give those general words of support any meaning.
I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that that form of sanction was very clearly designed in the Act, but it was precisely because we sought to explain to hon. Members throughout the House the way in which we would deal with that sanction and the sort of things that we would take into account that the Act attracted such all-party understanding and support.
Much of what the hon. Gentleman said this morning questioned the basis of the way in which we intend to apply those guidelines and deal with this difficult issue of the requirement to co-operate, but in his remarks he really did seek to present a classic worst case scenario at every step. I put it to him that we have taken sufficient care and concern to ensure that that should not happen.
I believe that it was precisely because of the intentions that we explained to the House during the passage of the Bill that it received all-party support. I do not think that it is now right for hon. Gentlemen to seek to suggest that they did not raise too much of a fuss about it because they did not know how it would work. If the words about the responsibilty of parents were really meant, they were meant with an understanding that there would have to be some consideration of sanctions should there not be co-operation with the agency.
I believe that the general welcome was given because hon. Members understood how we intended to apply the legislation. I now wish to turn to that in seeking to help the hon. Gentleman this morning. He wondered whether officers would be given sufficient training to enable them to interpret the guidelines correctly. I can assure him that staff conducting interviews will have been thoroughly trained not only in the correct procedures to follow, but in how to conduct the interview.
Great care and attention has been paid to preparing the agency's staff to deal sensitively and sympathetically with the situations. All staff who meet the public will receive training in specialist interviewing skills developed and delivered with the help of Relate, which has substantial experience of interviewing people in sensitive situations.
I am quite satisfied that the way in which we have approached training has been with the understanding in mind that women in the most sensitive and difficult circumstances may be approached. That is precisely why officers have been trained extremely carefully.
The hon. Gentleman suggested that a woman might be interviewed alone, and he used the phrase "locked in a DSS office". I am sure that he will concede that that is not my intention or that of anyone involved in the agency. I can assure him, first, that any woman who so wishes can be accompanied to an interview, and need never be alone in those circumstances. Secondly, there is no question of anyone being locked in the DSS office to complete the giving of information.
The work that we have completed on the requirement to co-operate has been carried out with the assistance of the National Council for One-Parent Families and the Child Poverty Action Group. I pay tribute to Sue Slipman and Fran Bennett, who have been extremely helpful. I do not suggest in any way that either organisation has agreed with the Government on every jot or tittle of the legislation, but they have understood what we were trying to do and how we have been trying to make our procedures as fair and resonable as possible. They have helped us immeasurably in looking at the forms, the guidelines and the statement that women would receive before interview informing them of their rights. They have been reassured of our intentions at every stage, just as the House was previously reassured.
The steps we have taken demonstrate the intentions behind the legislation. The training undertaken with Relate is part of that process, designed to reassure on the way that we handle the work.
The hon. Gentleman also suggested that the reduced benefit direction may be given at the whim of an officer in the Child Support Agency. That will not be the case. It may reassure him if I detail the steps before any reduced benefit direction might be taken.
If a parent or a parent's partner claims benefit or is in receipt of benefit, a maintenance application form will be sent out by the Benefits Agency or the Child Support Agency for completion. With that initial form requiring that an application for child maintenance should proceed, the accompanying letter includes the following provision:
Under child support law you are required to apply for child support maintenance and to provide information to allow us to recover child support maintenance, unless doing so would put either you or any children living with you at risk of suffering harm or undue distress. If you believe you have good reasons on these grounds not to apply for child support maintenance, please let us know.
At the first step, a parent is informed that if she is in difficult circumstances we are there to assist.
The help notes that accompany that letter, under the section headed, "Absent parent's details" state clearly:
You will not be required to fill in this form if there is a risk of harm or undue distress occurring to you, or any children living with you, as a result of your providing information about the other parent, or authorising the Secretary of State to seek maintenance for you.
If we had not been genuine in our intentions concerning the legislation, and if it had been a large cost-saving exercise, surely the warnings would not have been published. Those warnings are included because we understand the circumstances with which we are dealing. We wish to make it clear that, if there is any problem of the manner described by the hon. Gentleman, consideration will be given to our waiving the right to co-operate and pursue maintenance.
When the maintenance application form is returned with the absent parent details uncompleted or incomplete—or if it is not returned—a parent with care will be asked to attend an interview or will be visited at home or, if

necessary, at work. The hon. Gentleman suggested that that was a form of pursuance—not so. It gives the woman maximum opportunity to be seen where she wants to be seen so that the matters can be discussed.
If, at that stage, a parent with care shows good cause why she should withhold details of the absent parent—because she has satisfied an officer that there is a reasonable chance of harm or undue distress—no further action will be taken. If she fails to show good reason why she should withhold details of the absent parent or fails to attend for interview, a letter is sent on behalf of the Secretary of State to tell her that she has not shown good reason for failing to co-operate. The parent then has six weeks in which to consider her position and make further representations to us.
If, at the end of those six weeks, the parent with care has either not co-operated or failed to show good reason, the case is referred to a child support officer, who considers all the details afresh. That officer will then write again to the parent with care and give a further 14 days in which to comply with the requirement to co-operate or give good reasons for not doing so.
After that 14-day period, if, after careful consideration, a child support officer is satisfied that there is no reason to waive the requirement to co-operative, that officer may then issue a reduced benefit direction and send a copy to the parent with care. The hon. Gentleman wondered whether, at that stage, the officer would consider the welfare of the child. Regard to the welfare of the child can be considered even at that stage—even if no co-operation with the agency has been forthcoming, and the ability to issue a reduced benefit direction has come into play. The reduced benefit direction can be stopped even at that stage if an officer considers that the welfare of the child will be adversely affected. Once the reduced benefit direction has been applied, a further appeal process is still allowed.
There is a lengthy period during which a parent's case would be considered by a number of different people before any consideration were given to a reduced benefit direction. At each stage, there would be time for a parent with care to consider her position, and advice would be open to her, from her own sources and elsewhere, on whether it would be right for her to proceed in the way in which she should.
I must make it clear to the hon. Gentleman that more than adequate cover is provided in a situation in which a woman might be unclear or unsure in any way. No sudden, out-of-the-blue, reduction of benefit will be announced. Before that step is taken, a variety of opportunities offer the chance to consider what course of conduct has been followed and why co-operation with the agency is the better step.
I should like to go through the guidelines that we have issued, in the same manner as the hon. Gentleman did. He wondered why we had not spelt out even more clearly the details relating to harm or undue distress, and why we left it at the dictionary definition. We have done so precisely because we do not wish to exclude any circumstance from our consideration.
If we try to provide an exhaustive list of examples and to define too tightly the term "harm or undue distress", there is a danger that we might miss some circumstances in which harm or undue distress is caused to parents who come before us. We made the definition as wide as possible


because we wanted to leave all the options open to ensure that officers would be able to consider all the cases on an individual basis.
The sequence of events that I have just set out is detailed in the guidelines, which we have published. We made them available precisely because we wanted those who advised women to know what the precise circumstances would be. We have tried to be as open as possible in dealing with the circumstances. Paragraph 5 sets out in detail the way in which an application will be treated. It shows that we want the agency to act with good intent.
Paragraph 6 clearly sets out the opportunities of appeal. A woman need be under no fear that a sudden reduced benefit direction will come upon her with no warning, leaving her with no opportunity to do anything about it. The hon. Gentleman said that several important parts of paragraph 7 should be "borne in mind". That phrase means exactly what it says—the issues are to be in officers' minds at all times as they deal with people who come before the agency. The welfare of any children must be considered. The parent with care has a right to be believed unless what she says is inherently contradictory or improbable.
A reduced benefit direction is a strong sanction and will have an important impact on the income of a parent with care. It is very much a last resort, not something that will come quickly to an officer's mind. It is there to remind him of the impact of a benefit directive. As the hon. Gentleman said, the guidelines state.
a reduced benefit direction should not be counted in any benefit saving statistics.
That section was designed deliberately to provide a reassurance that the benefit direction will not be included in any targets.
We are caught in a cleft stick—if we had not included such a provision in the guidelines, the hon. Gentleman would have asked, "What about the savings that will be made under the scheme? The Government will try to ensure that plenty of women are placed in that position so that savings can be made." In order to make it clear that that is not our intention, and will not be the case, we have included that passage in the guidelines. Once we have done so, the hon. Gentleman picks on it as one of the reasons for the measure, so we cannot win.
All that I can do is to ask the hon. Gentleman to accept my assurance—as I know he will—that we will not make any savings, which are not the point of the measure and will not be included in any targets. We set out the points to be borne in mind as we wanted to show what officers should consider when they are talking to parents with care who may have difficulties.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to paragraph 12, which deals with the fact that a number of matters must be made clear to the parent with care. It states that the Child Support Agency
exists to help her obtain maintenance".
I have dealt with the issue of income support. A parent with care who said that there was nothing in the measure for her would be told that there is. We ask her to consider not just short-term, but medium and long-term, factors. We ask her to consider what she will want to do when the

children are older and at school. If she wants to return to work, maintenance will help her. Acquiring maintenance at an early stage will open up her options for the future.
The guidelines state:
she need not see the absent parent",
which is absolutely right. The Child Support Agency operates as a buffer if a woman does not want to have any contact with the absent parent. While I recognise that there will be a number of circumstances in which her address will be known, there will be occasions when she will have moved away and will not want any contact, but will still feel that a man has an obligation to maintain her child. We make it clear that, in those circumstances, we act for her. We can collect the maintenance from the other parent and deal with the administration; the money will be paid to us and then paid to the woman. We can reassure her that she will not have to have contact with the absent parent if she does not want to see him.
The next part of the paragraph states that the absent parent will not be given her address or even information about the town in which she lives, which is absolutely right. The system that we have devised ensures that all correspondence goes out not from individual Benefit Agency offices in towns up and down the country but only from six regional centres. That means that an absent parent who may be looking for his former partner in circumstances in which she does not wish him to find her cannot even discern from the address of the letter from the Child Support Agency where she might be. We have tried to cover that as well. Everything in paragraph 12 is designed to enable an officer to tell a woman the sort of points that we have considered on her behalf, and that is why it is there.
Then we go into the circumstances that we have detailed in paragraph 13 and beyond, setting out some examples. In it, we stress our understanding of the difficult nature of some of the interviews and some of the situations in which we find women. We say:
The interview to discuss this must be handled with care and sensitivity—many PWCs will be genuinely distressed about having to discuss the circumstances surrounding a former relationship. It will, however, be necessary to obtain enough information to enable a decision to be made about the case.
That is it in a nutshell. That is the point between us.
The gist of the hon. Gentleman's argument was that he feels that in some circumstances, there should be almost automatic right of non-disclosure and, providing that certain words are used by a woman, that will automatically ensure that no further steps are taken. I cannot think that that is the correct way to proceed, or that it would be a positive step. The guidelines show flexibility in implementing the policy sensitively.
It would not be useful to have a list of good grounds after which no discussion could take place. That could lead to problems by spelling out just what an absent parent might need to do, or say, or threaten to do, just to avoid maintenance. That is why we feel that it is better to leave it as we do, setting out clearly how we feel about harm and undue distress, and saying how officers will be trained. I hope that that shows the hon. Gentleman that we feel that an automatic right is not correct.
In setting out the circumstances afterwards, all that I ask the hon. Gentleman and others to do is to use their plain common sense about obvious circumstances that, when information is presented to officers, will enable them to act straightforwardly and say that there is no doubt that


there is good cause why they should not pursue maintenance on the woman's behalf, and will not do so. I am clear that, in the vast majority of cases that come before officers, they will be able to make that judgment, sensitively and correctly.
In the paragraphs after that, we detail some examples. The list is not designed to be exhaustive because we do not wish to exclude anything. I ask any reasonable person reading the guidelines to draw the inference that these are circumstances in which officers will act with consideration and sensitivity and where anyone given a reasonable presentation of the facts will respond by saying, "That is enough. This need go no further. No problem. We shall not be pursuing maintenance in the circumstances that you describe." That is what we have tried to set out.
The minimum number of questions will be asked to enable officers to reach a decision that tells them that those grounds have been satisfied. There is no desire to be over-intrusive. All that officers need to do is simply to establish that the requirement behind the Act has been satisfied, and that reasonable cause has been shown. In the varying circumstances that have been brought to us, a judgment will be made in each case as to how much information is provided. It will depend entirely on the circumstances.
We deliberately try to cover many aspects in paragraph 41. The hon. Gentleman spoke of the mentally ill or handicapped. I appeal to his common sense and obvious decency. He must understand that an officer will be in a position to judge in such a case just how much information that person will be able to give and at what stage he or she will be able to say that there is no need to go any further.
We must remember that an interview is not necessary in all cases. If sufficient information is provided in the form in the first place to enable the officer to form the judgment that there will be no question of pursuing maintenance because reasonable grounds have already been established, then some interviews may not need to take place. I suggest that, when dealing with the mentally ill or the handicapped, all the officers will be able to decide at what stage any questioning should ease because there is no need to pursue it. That is not designed to imply that officers or the agency will press or harass the mentally ill or the handicapped to pursue maintenance for our purposes.
There are other circumstances that are described in the paragraphs that the hon. Gentleman went through, but the same general principles apply. As for access and contact, the position is, as the hon. Gentleman is aware—

It being Eight o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, pursuant to Order [26 March].

Orders of the Day — Animal Aunts

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Robert G. Hughes.]

8 am

Mr. Iain Sproat: I am grateful for the opportunity at this early hour in the morning to raise the important subject of the treatment of Animal Aunts by the Department of Social Security. I shall start by explaining what the firm does. If a family has a pet or pets, whether dogs, cats, fish, a pony or whatever, and the family goes on holiday, Animal Aunts arranges for an animal carer to go to the family's home and to stay there while it is on holiday to look after the animal or animals and the house.
The firm was set up in 1987 under an enterprise allowance scheme. It obviously found a valuable niche in the market because it has prospered greatly. The aunts or uncles are placed in all parts of the country. When a family contacts the firm and says, "We would like someone to look after our animals while we are away on holiday", the aunt travels to the family's home and stays there while it is away. She is paid by the family, not by Animal Aunts. Over the six years or so since the firm began, it has found about 10,000 clients and it has about 300 animal carers. As I have said, it arranges for them to go to the homes of the clients to look after their pets. The firm provides a useful social service.
What does the Department of Social Security want to do? After six years of the firm's existence, the Department has decided that it believes that the animal carers are not self-employed, although that was the basis on which the firm was set up. As I have said, it was established under an enterprise allowance scheme with the full co-operation of the Department of Employment. For six years the Inland Revenue has agreed that the carers are self-employed. Customs and Excise has similarly agreed that that is the position. The Department of Employment set it up initially, it being the structure of the business plan that the carers should be self-employed. And so they have been for six years. Only then does the Department of Social Security say, "No, we believe that under the 1978 regulations dealing with the categorisation of earnings, the carers should be employed. We shall say to Animal Aunts, 'You must pay us the relevant national insurance contributions.'" I understand that the Department is asking Animal Aunts to pay those contributions from 1990 to the present day.
The results will be disastrous. The firm will go out of business and the 300-odd carers will lose their jobs. Everything that the Government are trying to build up, and have successfully built up under the enterprise allowance scheme, will be destroyed. It is a classic example. It is astonishing—almost not to be believed—that a Conservative Government, having set the firm up under an enterprise allowance scheme, should then decide to destroy it. The Department is seeking to destroy that company at a time when there are 3 million unemployed, we are emerging from the longest and deepest recession that almost anybody can remember, and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has just launched a campaign to get rid of burdens on business and has instructed my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade to make one Minister responsible for deregulation.
My hon. Friend the Minister may say, "There is nothing that we can do. That is the law, and we must obey


the law." But it is not the law; it is an interpretation by my hon. Friend's Department of a regulation—and in my view, it is a false interpretation. Presumably I am supported in that view by the Inland Revenue, Customs and Excise, and the Department of Employment—who for six years have gone along with the idea of animal carers being self-employed persons.
Time does not allow for close textual analysis of the relevant statutory instrument, the Social Security (Categorisation of Earners) Regulations 1978, but I draw the attention of my hon. Friend to schedule 1, part I. As is so often the case with regulations, the regulations are written in such a complicated way and have so many overlapping qualifications that although it is easy to find one part which appears to support one's argument, it is equally easy to find another part which does not.
Paragraph 2 of column (A) of the regulations obviously applies, as it uses the words
where the person employed is supplied by or through some third person".
However, that is preceded by wording stating that the employee
is under obligation to render personal service and is subject to supervision, direction or control, or to the right of supervision, direction or control, as to the manner of the rendering of such a service".
Clearly, that does not apply. An Animal Aunt is in my home at this moment, as I speak—and I have no control over that person. I only say, "I have six dogs. Look after them using your professional knowledge, in the way that you think best."
I have no supervision and am not physically present. I have no control over that person. My right of direction is exercised only in so far as I say, "Look after these animals."
Nor does the firm of Animal Aunts, which is even further removed from my house, have any supervision or control. The interpretation of my hon. Friend's Department is therefore wrong.
Even if there were some doubt, I would want it exercised as a principle by all Departments throughout Whitehall that where there is any doubt about the applicability of a regulation, the benefit of that doubt shall go to the side of the argument that is producing the jobs and the wealth creation—not the other way around, as my hon. Friend's Department seek to do in this case.
If doubt existed, presumably the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise would not have agreed that animal carers are self-employed and the Department of Employment would not have helped to establish the firm in the first place under the enterprise allowance scheme. Self-employment was the basis of the company's structure. We would not still be arguing the case six years on if doubt did not exist.
As my hon. Friend the Minister knows, there is a parallel case. Let us suppose that a farmer goes on holiday, requiring a stockman or herdsman to look after the stock while he is away. That stockman or herdsman is rightly regarded as self-employed, but he is doing exactly the same job for animals outside as most animal carers do for animals inside—although animal carers also look after outside animals if they have to. There is another element of doubt: the herdsman or stockman has agreed to be

self-employed, yet for some reason, after six years my hon. Friend's Department is saying that animal carers should not be regarded as self-employed.
There is a difference between the relationship between the agency Animal Aunts and animal carers, and a normal employer-employee relationship. In the former case there is no discipline and grievance procedure, no provision for notice, and no regular or assured hours of work. Animal Aunts, for example, is allowed to arrange for a substitute if an "animal aunt"—for instance, the one whom I had arranged to look after my dogs—is unable to turn up. The arrangement would not be made by the agency. The "animal aunt" whom I had hired and who could not turn up would pay the other one personally; payment would not be made by the agency.
These "aunts"—it is a ludicrous name—are in business on their own account. There is a financial risk; in fact, a case is in progress now. An aunt who looked after some pets in Scotland was not paid by the family. In such cases, the aunt does not go back to the agency and say, "I want my money"; she—or he—must get the money from the family for whom the work was done. Aunts also pay their own insurance. In one case—there are a number of others—an animal under the control of an aunt got out of control and bit a teenager. The teenager sued the aunt, not the agency.
There is no doubt in my mind, at any rate, that these people are self-employed. But even if my hon. Friend does not agree with my opinion, she cannot deny that there is doubt about the matter. I think it extraordinary that she should seek to exercise her judgment on that doubt against a company which creates jobs and wealth.
My hon. Friend's Department has displayed some of the most objectionable aspects of bureaucracy in its handling of the matter. First, it has shown an extraordinary combination of dilatoriness with a ferocious persistence in hounding the firm. My hon. Friend made a noise when I used the word "dilatoriness". I have a letter here: its authors took five and a half months to answer a letter from the lawyer acting for Animal Aunts. On 28 August 1990, they wrote—I speak from memory—"Thank you for your letter of 13 March. I am sorry we have not replied earlier." They did not explain why they had not done so. The firm had to hire accountants and lawyers and fire off letters; the Department of Social Security did not even bother to reply and then did not explain why it had not done so, but it still goes on hounding the firm.
The matter has been dragging on for six years. I think it intolerable that a Government Department should hound a firm for so long without resolving the problem: it has had to come to the Floor of the House because of the Department's threats. The letters are so carelessly written that, even after two years, there are fundamental mistakes. I have one letter in which the writer—a civil servant in my hon. Friend's Department—says that of course Animal Aunts are paid by the agency. That is a fundamental misunderstanding of the matter, even after two years of investigation.
Is my hon. Friend happy that an official in her Department, or the Contributions Agency, can decide to attack this firm? What can the firm do then? It can refer the case to an inquiry. But the inquiry is not an adjudicative one; it is only investigative. The inquiry therefore looks at the original decision made by an official in my hon. Friend's Department. It then goes back to her Department and another official in her Department decides whether to


uphold or overturn the original decision of an official in her Department. In other words, the Department is judge and jury in its own case. That must be wrong.
I tried to get statistics from my hon. Friend regarding the percentage of cases in which the Department had ever overturned decisions. As far as I could gather, in 85 per cent. of cases the Department, perhaps not surprisingly, had reinforced the original decision. I do not think that that is the right way to judge a case upon which somebody's livelihood depends.
As for the huge expense incurred, this firm amounts, really, to just two or three women somewhere in Hampshire. They had to hire lawyers and accountants. They instructed a barrister to represent them at the inquiry. I understand that they have spent thousands of pounds, just this year alone, on fending off the attacks of my hon. Friend's Department.
After I had set out much the same complaints as I have made in this debate, my hon. Friend wrote me a letter of some 1,000 words. I had said in my letter to her that she was about to destroy 250 to 300 jobs and to put a firm out of business. My hon. Friend's 1,000-word letter in reply contains not a single word about the loss of jobs, the worry and hassle for the business, the expense to the firm, or the firm being made to close down. No attempt was made even to answer the argument I put to her about the parallel between the relief stockman and the animal carers. Although there was not a single word about all that, my hon. Friend devoted a whole paragraph to saying that her officials were doing very well and that I must not attack them for hounding this company.
That is the sort of insensitivity and crass behaviour that infuriates businesses and individuals and which the Prime Minister is trying to sort out by means of the deregulation campaign. This is important for Animal Aunts, but it is also important as a signal to the outside world that people can take seriously what we are trying to do about removing burdens from business. I hope that my hon. Friend can give me some comfort on both grounds.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Miss Ann Widdecombe): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Mr. Sproat) for providing an opportunity for me to respond to the points that he has somewhat vehemently raised in the case of the firm of Animal Aunts, and also for the opportunity this gives me to say something about the importance that I attach generally to the correct determination under the law of individuals' employment status for national insurance, while at the same time seeking to ensure that the mechanisms for doing so are not unduly bureaucratic or burdensome.
This case is all about whether pet and animal sitters—or "aunts", as they are called—supplied by the firm Animal Aunts are to be treated as self-employed earners responsible for their own national insurance contributions or, as my hon. Friend vigorously contends, are to be treated as employed earners for national insurance purposes, with the firm of Animal Aunts being liable to pay full class 1 contributions on their behalf.
Class 1 national insurance contributions are, of course, the most widely paid class of contribution, paid by virtually everyone in a job and by office holders, such as company directors or, indeed, Members of Parliament.

Well over a million employers regularly deduct and pay over these contributions to the tune of nearly £40 billion per year. It is virtually part of our culture to pay these contributions. If anything, attention often focuses on instances in which employers fail to meet their obligations to pay contributions in respect of their employees. We have seen, for instance, reports by the Comptroller and Auditor General pinpointing certain shortcomings in the contribution collection system, and it is to the public credit of my Department's Contributions Agency that it is addressing these with vigour, and is meeting or exceeding the various high-level targets that are published.
In saying that, I seek not to undermine my hon. Friend's stance in the Animal Aunts case, but simply to place it in context. I should also like to remind the House of the purpose of national insurance contributions, which are at the very centre of this debate.
Unlike taxes, which are raised by the Crown with the consent of Parliament, to provide moneys for the general purposes of government, the national insurance system is entirely separate, providing pensions for the retired and short-term contributory benefits for those who are sick or unemployed. These benefits are covered by the national insurance fund, which is directly financed by the contributions of employers and people in employment. As its name denotes, the national insurance fund is an insurance fund over which the Secretary of State has powers of control and management. Entitlement to benefits from the fund depends upon the amount and class of contributions paid.
There is an important distinction here. Employed earners who have paid full class 1 contributions are entitled to the full range of contributory benefits. However, the class 2 contributions paid by self-employed persons do not earn entitlement to unemployment benefit or to SERPS. Moreover, self-employed persons who suffer an accident at work cannot qualify for disablement benefits under the industrial injuries scheme, so it is very important from the individual contributor's point of view that he or she be correctly categorised for national insurance purposes. We have heard much about the interests of the firm, but we need to consider also the interests of individuals and the benefits that may or may not accrue according to which contributions they pay.
Indeed, a considerable number of disputes arise from cases where workers have been treated as self-employed persons, suffered an accident at work and then found that they are not entitled to benefits under the industrial injuries scheme. Of course, in the vast majority of cases it is abundantly clear which is the correct class of contribution due: usually a person is either working clearly under contract of service to an employer or is on business on his own account, and therefore an independent contractor.
However, the Government are conscious that there are grey areas, and, picking up the deregulation point that my hon. Friend made, we have sought to make it as easy as possible for people to get authoritative advice on their status. Thus, in each tax and social security office one person is responsible for all inquiries and decisions about employment status. Anyone in work can get a written decision on their employment status from either the Inland Revenue or the DSS. My Department and the Inland Revenue have got together to produce a joint leaflet giving extra guidance.
I will come later to the special position of employment agencies, but, while on the subject of deregulation, I should just like to mention my Department's employers panel, with whom we consult regularly on a wide range of issues. The next meeting of the panel is to be on 25 May 1993. Sub-groups of the main panel meet on specific issues, and small businesses are represented on the panel. Arising from our commitment to the Government's deregulation initiative, we are eliminating, from this April, some annoying differences in definitions of earnings and expenses between tax and national insurance.
I have described in some detail the general provisions that govern employment status, but there is a particular provision that is relevant to this case. It deals with the special circumstances of employment agencies that supply workers to third parties. By way of further background, the House should be aware that the special provisions embodied in the Social Security (Categorisation of Earners) Regulations exist with the aim of achieving parity of treatment for workers under the social security scheme.
Thus, for example, a relief typist or secretary supplied by an agency and working alongside other office workers under similar conditions is treated as an employed earner for the purposes of national insurance by virtue of the regulations, notwithstanding that she would otherwise be a self-employed earner, because she is not under a contract of service to either the agency or client firm.
Following a query from one of the "aunts" late in 1987, my Department made detailed inquiries into the terms of engagements and eventually concluded late in 1989 that the provisions of the regulations to which I have referred were satisfied, and that the aunts should be treated as employed earners for national insurance purposes.
I should like to say a little about the Contributions Agency's conclusions. Regulations 2(1) and (2) of the Social Security (Categorisation of Earners) Regulations provide for persons to be treated as employed earners in respect of any employment falling within column A of part 1 of schedule 1 provided the person is not within the exceptions specified in the corresponding paragraph of column B.
It was concluded that the aunts fell within paragraph 2 of column A, but that the exceptions in column B did not apply. In particular, one condition that had to be satisfied was that there was no on-going financial interest on the part of the third person. However, under the terms of the contract with the client, Animal Aunts collects further fees if an engagement is extended or renewed at a later date, and therefore maintains an on-going financial interest in the employment. Subject to the ruling being operated by the firm, the Department agreed not to pursue the question of arrears at that time.
Rulings of this sort are administrative in nature and carry no force in law. However, there is the right to have the question formally determined by the Secretary of State, as provided by section 17 of the Social Security Administation Act 1992. The Secretary of State's function is to determine a question raised by a contributor. There is no provision for the Department to raise any question itself, or to participate in the proceedings as an interested party.
The jurisdiction is not to adjudicate in a dispute between the contributor and the Department, but to

investigate afresh all the facts relevant to the question and to reach a conclusion as to its appropriate determination in the light of all the relevant facts and applicable law.
In carrying out those functions, the Secretary of State has power to appoint a person to hold an inquiry into the question and report to him. Such inquiries are inquisitorial and form part of the process of determination. The possibility of a formal determination in the Animal Aunts case was quickly mentioned in ensuring correspondence between the Department and the firm's accountants, but the correspondence became somewhat protracted as the accountants queried the application of the regulations and the Department responded.
Far from hounding the firm as my hon. Friend has suggested, I think that it would be right to say that the Department took considerable time and trouble to examine every representation made on the matter, but finally remained of the view that the facts did not allow another conclusion to be reached. It was more than two years later that the firm eventually applied for the matter to be formally determined last May. Further delays took place, but the inquiry was held last month, and I am pleased to be able to tell the House that the inquirer's report and recommendation have been received, and it was possible for the formal decision to be given yesterday. This has been dispatched to Animal Aunts and will, I hope, arrive in the first post this morning, but I have pleasure in informing the House that the "aunts" who were the subject of the application have been found not to be included, or treated as included, in the category of employed earner for the purposes of social security Acts—

Mr. Sproat: Hear, hear.

Miss Widdecombe: —and, on that announcement, I am pleased to hear the first kind words in this debate from my hon. Friend. In other words, the Secretary of State found in favour of Animal Aunts. If I may say so, I think that that is particularly significant, given my hon. Friend's concern about the independence of the decision-making process when the Secretary of State might be held by some to be judge in his own cause.
It is not uncommon for the Secretary of State to overturn the Department's view. The "improvement" rate—as it is called—by the Secretary of State, for instance in 1991–92, was such that 36 per cent. of employment status decisions resulted in the Department's view being overturned. That is a very much higher percentage than my hon. Friend suggested.
My hon. Friend made the point that where there is reasonable doubt about the applicability of a regulation, the benefit of that doubt should be in favour of the side that creates or preserves jobs and profitability. There are wider issues here which it would not be appropriate for me to try to answer, but I do think that if one were making such a proposition then an equally strong argument could be made for giving the benefit of the doubt in such a way as would protect the benefit rights of the individuals concerned.
Finally, I pay tribute not only to my hon. Friend's enthusiasm in pursuing the Animal Aunts case so vigorously, but also to the entrepreneurial spirit of its proprietor. Let there be no doubt about that: the last thing my Department wants to do is to harass small businesses.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at half-past Eight o'clock.